Also interesting how some Republican insiders thought that Obama won the debate, while a majority thought that Romney won only by a slim margin.

Meanwhile, most Democratic insiders thought that Obama won by a wide margin.

Clearly, the Republican insiders are far more honest, modest, and in-touch with reality than the Democratic insiders, but then again, this is expected when low life POS scum bag Schmitzy is listed as a Democratic insider!

@Hoffa
Republican insiders (of which you apparently badly want to be) need to face facts.
Romney did not win this debate. I am curious as to which "insiders" you have been in contact with. How about George will or Charles Krauthammer? I will concede that Governor Romney won the first debate. Are you so insecure that you can't concede that the President won the second? Quit being a FOX lemming.

Take the blinders (not binders) off. Your candidate lost. Deal with it.

One last thing, is anyone who has a differing opinion than yours a scum bag? Am I in your opinion a scum bag because my opinions differ from yours? Just curious...

No John, but jerk probably applies for your incessant piling on. Hoffas take on Schmitz is accurate. What else do you call someone that loses a bet, owes you $50 and won't pay up?

When it's a landslide victory the otherside has no option except to admit partial defeat. That or be revealed as delusional. JRH suffers from megalomania.

John, unless you placed a wager, lost and then refused to pay up for months (an action that, in part, reinforces a reputation borne of a rather notorious business dealing that many are familiar with) while simultaneously posting sanctimonious holier-than-thou race-baiting one-liners on a regular basis , I don't think you have to worry about being labeled in that fashion.

Was there a signed agreement between Keith S. and Mr. Hoffa? If so it should be produced or all should move on. Enough already!

JRH –

Willard, his wife Ann, and his 5-children, Tagg, Josh, Ben, Matt, and Craig – given a 100M dollar endowment each at birth, to help them make it in this entrepreneurial society – all returned from planet Kolob today and announced that Willard was the clear winner in Tuesday’s debate. Further, they announced that “Binders full of Women”, Willard’s new bestseller, will soon be translated into 43 different languages.

Finally, they stated that the first 10,000 people to order the book in one of the 43 translated languages, will receive a free, used and unwashed pair of Willard’s “Magic Underwear.” To promptly receive the special bonus, “Magic Underwear”, you will have to contact James Riddle Hoffa Esquire III, via the Patch with documentation that you purchased the book.

The only place where authenticated “Magic Underwear” may be obtained is through James Riddle Hoffa Esquire III…be careful of scams…

@John Wilson
Thank you for proving which party is the party of intolerance and bigotry.

Don't worry, JRH, the 'binders full of women' is not all that we have to 'complain about' when it comes to Mitt Romney. It was off the cuff, so I'll give him a pass on this unfortunate wording.

JBS -

"Everyone already knows which party is the party of intolerance and bigotry."

I am not using 16th century Theology in the legislators across the USA to savage basic human rights and put America in the Todd Akin's dark ages...

As clarified before, I do not belong to any party and I am areligious; I am sorry you have to be reminded of that weekly...

If "US" and "THEM" works for you "MAGICAL THINKING" people, so be it...

Bren, when you start your own little Patch-like site you can call the shots on who needs to move on. Until then, butt out and ignore the topic if you don't like it.

@John Wilson
I was unaware that a person who was free from the constraints of both party affiliation and religion could therefore insult the rest of us. I am glad you are able to excuse the intolerance of your previous post.

One thing I have noticed is that when liberals watch debates they only hear what Obama says and what the media claims Romney said. If you re-read the debate (including words not uttered by Obama) you would notice that Romney said he was only given male candidates originally. While he failed to disclose the delivery method for the paperwork from those male candidates; a aside from binders how else would they be delivered? Please explain how 'binders' are derogatory?

@J.B. Schmidt -- "If you re-read the debate (including words not uttered by Obama) you would notice that Romney said he was only given male candidates originally."

By whom? His own advisers? The men he picked to be around him? I see a failure of vision here.

@Randy
Can you prove anything you asked? Of course not. You simply pose the questions that Romney is a sexists and expect the rest of the world to acknowledge your elite liberal mind.

In the absence of any details, one has to ask questions. It's the hallmark of having a mind, period.

I find it difficult to believe that in this day and age, Mitt Romney was presented with the resumes of men only to start out.

@Bren -

For the zillionth time - don't need a signed writing! The statute of frauds does not apply to this agreement.

Stop trying to play armchair lawyer and defending Schmitzy - both are greatly embarrassing you!

But, seeing as how you're insistent:

James R Hoffa

1:55 pm on Tuesday, February 28, 2012

@Keith -

Who's the one that believes in the big bad evil Koch boogey-men? If all Walker needs is the Koch's and he's their puppet, as you and your side constantly claims, then why are you guys constantly complaining about him doing campaign fundraising all over the country? After all, he has the Koch's - he doesn't need to pander for a few thousand a plate or $30k-50k like Obama does, right?

Sounds like we're on then - I'm willing to do $100, but we'll call it $50 as this is a friendly wager after all, presented in persona to the winner not more than 3 weeks after the results from the recall election are verified at a location of your choosing. If a recall is not triggered for whatever reason, and the John Doe fails to indict Walker by Nov 1, 2012, then Hoffa will be declared the winner by default and the same satisfaction requirements will then apply. If Walker is indicted before Nov 1, then an eventual judgment by the trial court upholding a conviction of any kind against Walker, excluding any appellate proceedings, will secure a default in favor of Mr. Schmitz and again the same satisfaction requirements will then apply.

Sound good?

Keith Schmitz

9:23 pm on Tuesday, February 28, 2012

Sounds fair to me Sir. You're on.

Keith Schmitz

9:23 pm on Tuesday, February 28, 2012

You all are witnesses BTW.

James R Hoffa

10:22 pm on Tuesday, February 28, 2012

Alright Patchers -

You heard it here - Schmitz v Hoffa in a friendly wager on the Walker saga.

I wonder if we'll see any side action going on!

Thanks for being a good sport Keith!

http://caledonia.patch.com/articles/walker-not-challenging-recall-signatures

A recall did happen, and Walker was certified the winner. Little did Hoffa know at the time that Keith Schmitz was not going to be a "good sport" about this, but rather a low-life POS scum bag reneger!

Schmitzy's electronic assent to the terms of the written agreement is just as good as a signed writing, even though one is not required of this agreement.

So stop acting like a FOOL Bren!

@John Feia -

As you can clearly see from the posting above, low life POS scum bag Schmitzy entered into an agreement with Hoffa. Schmitzy later requested a modification of that agreement whereby he'd send the payment via the US mail if Hoffa provided him with a mailing address. Hoffa assented to the requested modification and provided Schmitzy with a mailing address on multiple occasions.

Hoffa has yet to receive the fifty ($50) payment from Schmitzy and is getting ready to call his collection guys from Detroit - who are experts in the use of tire irons and ball-peen hammers!

@Randy
So you are making assumptions rather than do your research. It must be nice to have a mind that can accuse.

Hoffa is getting sick of all of this affirmative action BS!

People should not get points for being female, they should not get points for being disabled, they should not get points for being a member of a so-called racial minority, they should not get points for being a foreign national, they should not get points for prior military service, the should not get points... etc. Hopefully you all get the point.

THE BEST QUALIFIED PERSON PERIOD SHOULD ALWAYS GET THE JOB!!!

Enough said!

@Hoffa
I thought you were referring to McCain campaign director Steve Schmidt's frequent appearances on MSNBC. My bad. I should have known that you couldn't have been since you only watch 1 channel... :-)

@GearHead Being labeled a "jerk" by you is a compliment.

@John Feia -

You'd be surprised - Hoffa watches MSNBC (or MSDNC), Current, RT, Link TV, Bloomberg, CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS, CNBC, and a variety of other left-leaning outlets, in addition to The Blaze, Fox News, and Fox Business.

Ever notice how the left has far more media outlets on their side than the right?

Bob McBride –

Until you own a blog, you can tell people what they can post or not and how to deal with items that they don’t like; I too am tired of seeing you and your puerile Boffa cabal fill up the blog with your incredibly juvenile $50.00 bet. If you can’t afford to bet, and someone will not pay it, that is a PERSONAL PROBLEM!

MOVE ON!

No one with an IQ above 70 would interject their PERSONAL ISSUES on a PUBLIC BLOG!

I am flagging everything on the $50.00 bet, and I am emailing the editor.

Please stop boring us with your incredibly mind-numbing, juvenile personal behavior…

@Hoffa
Your diverse media watching habit doesn't surprise me at all. I was just poking fun. I have the same media watching habits. I also watch Current TV... (again another joke). I feel that it is necessary to get all the different viewpoints on topics that I want to comment on here or anywhere else. I sometimes even tune in Rush on the radio. I don't do that for info though, I do it when I need a laugh...

@Lyin' John Wilson -

Coming from the king of offensive posts!

What makes you the dictator of what can and should be posted on a public forum?

Tyrannical in your rants, just as your preference in political leaders would suggest!

Wilson I'm going to give the benefit of the doubt and assume you have a legitimate prescription for whatever it is you're on. I would suggest you go back and review the recommended dosage, however.

JBS –

“Please explain how 'binders' are derogatory?"

I have not said “binders” are derogatory.

“Binders Full of Women” is extraordinarily hilarious! [CONTEXT MATTERS]

THESE WORDS CAME OUT OF WILLARD'S MOUTH!

[Did you hear the audience laughter when Willard uttered those words?]

The humorous side of me is really hoping that Willard wins this election, as comedians will, once again, have as much material, if not more, than they did when Bush 2 was in office…

Mr. Hoffa, the one thing you forget is that you are an internet "ghost," same as me. You post under an assumed name. Only those who post under their real identities could credibly make a wager or conduct other business. The little I saw about the wager was dismissed by me (and likely others) as a joke. Nothing you have posted suggests anything beyond that; except possibly the idea (not the first time it's come to mind) that you have a great deal of time on your hands.

I recommend a new K-Drama currently airing, The Third Hospital (셋째 병원).

Bren does sort of have a point there. I certainly don't take Bren's stories about their family, friends, associates, acquaintances, travels, encounters with politicians, work history and, in particular, their inflated self-opinion seriously.

However that doesn't excuse non-ghost, Keith Schmitz, from accepting the bet publicly and indicating he would pay up if he lost. So I'm going to continue to call him on it whenever I wish. And I encourage others to do so as well, including the ghost Hoffa.

@Bren -

Your argument has no legal standing.

If you bothered to read the agreement, Hoffa was to meet up with Schmitzy in persona at a location of his choosing. When Schmitzy proposed a modification, allowing him to mail the payment to Hoffa, Hoffa assented and provided Schmitzy with a registered mailing address.

Intent of the parties controls. And there's clear evidence of assent on both sides. While James R Hoffa may be a representative screen name, it is associated with a real person, which is easily confirmable in persona - Hoffa would simply log into his Patch account, providing the correct email address and password.

People enter into binding legal agreements all the time with 'ghost' entities that they never meet. Ever purchase a product from a corporately owned entity?

It wasn't a joke - Hoffa was fully prepared to pay if he lost the bet. And your third party opinion of the situation has no bearing on the matter!

Hoffa will check out The Third Hospital on your recommend if it's easily accessible online.

JRH -

"What makes you the dictator of what can and should be posted on a public forum?"

Reason, TOS, logic, appropriateness and the ability to discern what is PUBLIC and what is PRIVATE… The Patch is not your private sandbox!

@Lyin' John Wilson -

So in other words, your own self inflated ego!

The writer of the story, Mark, has interviewed all these partisans, but who speaks for the Moderates ? Their are plenty of Moderates who do not follow the political party doctrines, the talk show hosts and the partisan bloggers. Your poll is just a chance for the partisans to vote their party line. Why are we left out ?

Hey, Hoffa and friends: This whole goofiness about some bet that was made months ago is getting annoying and has nothing to do with the stories that you're commenting on. Can't you guys give it a rest -- and focus you comments on the election?

The "goofiness" you refer to wouldn't even be an issue if the guy who made the bet publicly here on Patch (one of Patch's "political insiders", btw) would pay up as he stated he would.

Talk to that guy, Mark.

Mark Maley -

Thank you for being the adult on the Patch; finally, someone knows how annoying PERSONAL ISSUES on a PUBLIC BLOG makes things sickening for EVERYONE.

If you folks, involved in this miniscule $50.00 betting absurdity here, all know each other so well, get together somewhere and deal with it or just act like an adult and let it go...

No one can/should carry this issue around forever... especially to the detriment of this blog...

John, I don't want to put words in Hoffa's mouth, but I believe it is the principle of the thing, not the money. Schnmitzy was so confident that he and the other Liberals could bamboozle most of the state into voting against Governor Walker in a recall election, that he put $50 on it. Has he even responded to Hoffa's comments? Maybe if he offered to give it to the charity of Hoffa's choice?

John also wrote "...I am flagging everything on the $50.00 bet, and I am emailing the editor..."
I bet the Menominee Falls Patch editor emails his back telling him to stop being a tattle tale.

The Anti-Alinsky -

Look, this is not a life and death situation; this buffoonery has been going on for just about every TOPIC on the Patch for 5-months now!

[What’s next, going after a grade school teacher who you feel didn’t give you the proper grade 10-years ago? Perhaps you can key his car weekly?]

I know you and the other Hoffa sycophants really believe, "but I believe it is the principle of the thing..." Fine! You have made your point, again, for 5-months!

I have been dissed on bets lower than $50.00 and over $50.00... There is a time to tell yourself, you got to see this entire persons being for only $50.00, cheap in most cases, and move on...

Conversely, this is between 2 other people, and you are not directly involved – pile on much; further, all of SE Wisconsin doesn’t want to know about a PERSONAL ISSUE between these 2 people on a PUBLIC BLOG.

I did email Lisa & Mark, and I will continue to flag these stupid $50.00 bet comments; and, I will go higher than that to stop this annoying stupidity as well.

You folks all sound like you are from the planet Kolob!

Schmitzie should pay up- I was witness to the agreement and will testify as such.
Flag my a$$ Wilson.

John, it's interesting how character doesn't matter when it's one of your fellow Liberals involved.

I find it interesting that this little $50 bet mirrors the Barack Hussein Obama campaign tactics so well. When something goes against your side you try to ignore it as long as possible. When you finally realize it isn't going away, you try to marginalize and ridicule it as much as possible, just like this whole binder fake-out. I have yet to hear why this could even be an issue.

Barack Hussein Obama and his fellow Liberals have spent the last four years on stupid things, and not on what counts...JOBS and the ECONOMY!

@Mark Maley -

Do you really want to encourage 'flag as inappropriate' wars here on the Patch, because quite frankly, Hoffa has had to read many a racial comments from Schmitz and many a religious bigotry comments from Wilson (in addition to other offensive comments), and has not once flagged or complained about any of those, because unlike those two, Hoffa actually believes in and encourages the sanctity of free speech.

Out of respect to Patch and your formal request, Hoffa will drop mentioning the bet specifically, as after all, this is your playground and Hoffa respects that, but from here on in, Hoffa will ALWAYS make sure to reference both Schmitz and Wilson for the ASSHOLES that they truly are.

Either that, or Hoffa will stop patronizing and supporting the Patch all together. The choice is yours.

Cheers!

Republicans shot down every jobs bill Obama proposed to make him look bad it is in they're manifesto they own this bad economy big time...

mhazzard, whine more. Obama set the pace for the lack of cooperation right out of the blocks and his lack of any leadership experience and understanding of how you get cooperation from adversaries is what's led the to stalemate we have today. You lefties are quick to blame the CEOs in private business for everything. Well, this nation's CEO deserves to take the fall when his lack of political acumen results in a legislative logjam. Other presidents have had to deal with it. He should be able to. Or he's got to go.

The real reason Schmitz doesn't pay up is because he loves the attention. It's the single most effective thing the guy has done here to warrant himself any attention. The race-baiting, hypocritical one-liners (aside from serving as great straight lines on occasion) are forgettable. It's all he's got and, Wilson, goddammit, you're attempting to rain on Schmitz's parade. Shame on you.

As for Patch using a welshing, race-baiting, coffee-gulping, free Wi-Fi abusing, grumpy old crank as one of their "political insiders", you guys just keep his rep in mind and your tacit endorsement of that kind of character next time you decide the comments section is getting a little unruly. And if you want to see what drives the eyeball counts around this place, shut down the comments section for a month and run with the articles alone.

Sounds like more snake oil from Fox Bob there is nothing Obama could do to please Republicans, they are "Neanderthals"...

The only bill Obama can't pay for Schmitz is his debt to Hoffa. Otherwise it would get paid. All his other debts have either been absorbed by others or the government check is in the mail.

mhazzard, a simple "i got nuthin'" would have sufficed.

I'm tired of reading about the $50. No more bets on Patch, please.

I'm not always a patient person, I've actually set down cash to pay for someone else's item when they are burrowing through coupons and arguing with the cashier about expired coupon/$ .35 off. (!) I'm not at the point of sending $50 to Mr. Hoffa myself but getting darn close. Maybe we should set up "legal defense fund" like Scott Walker. ; )

Bob McBride, the price I pay for posting under an assumed name is the lack of credibility. But the links I source are real, that's the most important ingredient I bring to the table.

I don't have a "high" opinion of myself, simply present an honest assessment of my formidable intellectual gifts. ; ) (sorry, couldn't resist!)

Bren: Would it not be easier to just make the POS skumbag Kieth pay his debt? He must know that when he doesn't pay other bills the mail is flooded with final notices, and a barrage of phone calls start.
In comparison, the reminders here on Patch are a lot less intrusive as they do not interrupt Kieth's wiskey consumption.

Bren, this really isn't about you, as disheartening as that may be.

@Bren -

Thanks for the laugh, really!

But it's more about the principle of the thing than the money. Hoffa made the friendly wager in good faith out of a sense of community, as it was supposed to be something over which Hoffa would have actually met Schmitzy in persona had Schmitzy not negotiated a modification to the original terms and then reneged on his obligation all together.

Believe it or not, but Hoffa was actually looking to forward to meeting Schmitzy in persona, as Hoffa is a very laid back and fun guy - just ask most of the Patch editors, as they know Hoffa personally ;-)

You'll notice that in the original discussion wherein the bet took place, Hoffa responded "thanks for being a good sport Keith," after Schmitzy assented to the terms, while Schmitzy's response was "you all are witnesses BTW."

Schmitzy just so happened to turn out to be a race baiting low life POS scum bag - and that's a sad thing. But in life, you lie in the bed you make.

Hoffa = character and integrity
Schmitzy = low life POS scum bag

End of line.

@McBride -

LOVE your retorts to the self declared "superior intellect!"

JRH -

(To Bren) "But it's more about the principle of the thing than the money."

Boffa, you probably think "principle" is the name of a form of Russian currency!

That said, I was, however, somewhat pleased to read - thinly veiled threats to Mark that you would start a flag war or, OH, MY GOD, NO! "Leave the Patch" - but you would make some effort to reframe from posting your PERSONAL ISSUES on this PUBLIC BLOG...

You are not the first person on the Patch to attempt to leverage a personal relationship for extra leeway in posting: it is called Neanderthal cronyism.

[Not your personal sandbox, Boffa]

We – you, [your cabal of rabid sycophants: Bob McBride, GearHead, J. B. Schmidt, The Anti-Alinsky, Luke, Craig, et al] – and I do have many legitimate issues about many different topics and largely different language skills, words and methodologies in expressing those differences. That is simply not an issue at all for me; I do not take anything you folks state personally.

I sincerely do hope that you do take the mature approach to the PERSONAL v PUBLIC BLOG as it is truly better for all, especially the Patch.

Are we CLEAR?

@Lyin' John Wilson -

You couldn't just ignore the so-called "personal issues" that you didn't personally agree with as being appropriate for this forum. No, instead you had to go crying to the editor and flagging comments like a little baby.

When you act like a child, be prepared to be treated like a child.

Are we clear little lyin' John Wilson?

Craig, it might indeed be easier for all of our nerves if Keith would pay Hoffa. I'm not convinced that a debt actually exists. I myself would not make a bet with a member of the "Hoffa" family. ; )

Mr. Hoffa, you call me a "fool" yet your behavior regarding a phantom $50 bet is, if I may indulge in a four-syllable word, ridiculous. You might have been interested in meeting Keith S. in person but after all your spamming, who seriously would care to reciprocate? It would be different if you had approached it in an amusing, lighthearted way instead of namecalling.

Bob McBride, it isn't all about me, of course. One of the pleasures of Patch. But I believe tripartisan momentum for ending the $50 bet spam is building.

John Wilson wrote: ...thinly veiled threats to Mark that you would start a flag war..."

Again, when it affect you you sudden try to minimize and ridicule it. Hoffa's point was for each reference to Schmitzy's welching, he could probably flag ten inappropriate comments by you, Schmitzy, Randy and others.

Mr Maley, maybe a discussion on proper etiquette in these blogs might be in order, if nothing more that to get this discussion moved to an appropriate thread.

The Anti-Alinsky -

"Barack Hussein Obama and his fellow Liberals have spent the last four years on stupid things, and not on what counts...JOBS and the ECONOMY!"

Yes, I certainly agree! Unemployment is now at 7.8%, significantly lower than when President Obama took office, over 5M+ jobs have been created, ACA is and will continue to create even more jobs, and every index regarding our economy is now trending positive, including new housing starts. Yes, I certainly agree!

This only occurred, however, because of the massive takeover by the GOP lead congress in 2010; they campaigned on JOBS, JOBS, JOBS and really came through for America! More obstructionism, more politics that are divisive, more abortion, contraception, Planned Parenthood and a full-scale march for women’s rights, including equal pay, all created more legislative jobs… Thank GOD… and ALEC!

@Lyin' John Wilson -

"Yes, I certainly agree! Unemployment is now at 7.8%, significantly lower than when President Obama took office,"

There you go again with your LIES!

When Obama took office, unemployment was at 7.8%. In 2010, Obama had the BLS change the standards and methodology used for computing the unemployment number, right before we were supposed to have the summer of recovery in response to his stimulus bill, even though, ha, ha, "shovel ready wasn't as shovel ready as we expected," ha,ha, remember?

And despite now once again having 7.8% unemployment, workforce participation is down by about 28% from where it was at when Obama took office, thus even though the unemployment number is the same, there are significantly less people working today then when he took office - millions.

You'd know these facts if you bothered to do any kind of real in-depth and substantive research instead of constantly parroting the Democratic talking points!

Try again!

@Bren -

Hoffa only 'spammed' Schmitzy about it on the Patch boards after he reneged on the bet - you'd know this if you've actually been following the factual development of the situation.

Why are you so disposed to defending someone of such low character?

And unless you only purchase goods and services from the registered agents or owners of record of corps, then you enter into what you call 'ghost contracts' all the time.

So please, stop trying to play armchair lawyer - it really makes you sound foolish!

JRH -

"You couldn't just ignore the so-called "personal issues" that you didn't personally agree with as being appropriate for this forum. No, instead you had to go crying to the editor and flagging comments like a little baby."

You and your insipid cabal of Boffa lemmings have been inundating all TOPICS on the Patch with your vile and distasteful venom over a very stupid alleged bet for 5-months; I informed you intellectually extremely low EQ people what I was going to do and I did it. I do not bluff!

None of you so well educated, thoughtful, mature cretins – playing mass bully in what you thought was your private sandbox – had a thought about anyone else on the blog, just you, you, you; an entire gang of self-centered, selfish freshmen acting cretins.

Grow up! The axis of the planet does not run through your anus!

[Insert your baby tears here]

@Lyin' John Wilson -

But the Patch apparently is your personal sandbox for:

1) leveling personal insults against others, the Tea Party, our Governor, every Republican running for public office this year, anyone with whom you disagree with, etc;

2) frequently espousing your hateful religious bigotry;

3) race baiting and calling others racists without any foundation, while clearly engaging in racist behavior yourself;

4) declaring yourself "great;" and

5) being your basic idiot in general.

Very interesting - Hoffa never knew that!

Clearly, you're the one with the over-inflated ego that has run amuck on the Patch comment boards - not Hoffa.

Try a little humility - it may just go a long way with you!

And a lot of those undecideds are the ones that vote based upon how likable they find the candidate's personality. The important issues are too difficult for them to grasp in any depth.

I should add that women tend to decide later in the race than men. They are prone to ruminate longer on big decisions. In many aspects of life this works to their advantage (meaning they often make better decisions than men). There have been many studies on this tendency.

Bob McBride -

Your elitist tendencies are escaping into the full light of day…

I would suspect that the number of true undecided at this point are basically statistically insignificant... further, this would be the least enthusiastic and least motivated folks to actually go to the polls.

Additionally, that is why we call it a DEMOCRACY; everyone who meets the basic requirements to vote is guaranteed by the Constitution that right.

Ironically, a Democracy is clearly the most inefficient form of government in existence…

John Wilson -

Your ability to bore the s**t out of me escapes you.

Will someone inform the soccer ball air head Wilson, that we are a Republic and not a democracy? If you want him to hear you, you have to pull his head out of his ass.

Another intellectual comment by Craig...

Feia and Wilson: two pigs in a poke.

@Craig -

Upon reading your 'pigs in a poke' comment, Hoffa immediately thought of this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2PUA64rQbw4

Keith Best -

Apparently, so did the state of Utah, which consumes more pornography than any other state in the union... wonder why?

@lyin' John Wilson -

Cite your source please!

JRH –

Boffa, not only is the state of Utah the number ONE consumer of pornography, but CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICAN RED STATES all consume more pornography than other blue or purple states.

That is no surprise to me… I will not cite the unimpeachable source here for you testosterone driven Neanderthals: The Bible.

“However, there are some trends to be seen in the data. Those states that do consume the most porn tend to be more conservative and religious than states with lower levels of consumption, the study finds.”

"Some of the people who are most outraged turn out to be consumers of the very things they claimed to be outraged by," Edelman says.”

You might, however, check the following sites:

http://www.mediaite.com/online/gop-calls-for-more-anti-porn-enforcement-as-red-states-view-the-most-porn/

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16680-porn-in-the-usa-conservatives-are-biggest-consumers.html

http://www.pcworld.com/article/160566/utah_online_porn.html

@Lyin' John Wilson -

Hoffa fails to see your point or how it pertains to the topic posed by the article.

Hoffa liberally supports the First Amendment, even if the GOP doesn't.

Porn away if you so desire - it doesn't bother Hoffa one bit.

Hoffa isn't tied to a political party or religion - he is an independent with conservative/vulcan leanings.

@John Wilson
Can you prove that it is the conservatives viewing the porn? Or like Randy and most other liberals, you make claims that are not provable in order to disarm your opponent when you have no facts?

What claims did I make, Schmidt? Romney was talking about cabinet positions. Are those not appointees? These are not positions one applies for on MonsterdotCom. If only male candidates were put before the Governor (or Governor-elect) as was stated, doesn't that indicate something wrong in the search process?

JBS -

Again, seeing as you apparently can't comprehend my post to Boffa...

Not only is the state of Utah the number ONE consumer of pornography, but CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICAN RED STATES all consume more pornography than other blue or purple states.

That is no surprise to me… I will not cite the unimpeachable source here for you testosterone driven Neanderthals: The Bible.

“However, there are some trends to be seen in the data. Those states that do consume the most porn tend to be more conservative and religious than states with lower levels of consumption, the study finds.”

"Some of the people who are most outraged turn out to be consumers of the very things they claimed to be outraged by," Edelman says.”

You might, however, check the following sites:

http://www.mediaite.com/online/gop-calls-for-more-anti-porn-enforcement-as-red-states-view-the-most-porn/

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16680-porn-in-the-usa-conservatives-are-biggest-consumers.html

http://www.pcworld.com/article/160566/utah_online_porn.html

JRH -

Boffa, you fail to see, hear, and understand just about EVERYTHING... the only area(s) you excel in are name-calling, circular arguments and copious amounts of superfluous text...

I hope you have gotten enough ATTENTION for the day…

@Lyin John Wilson -

So, only conservative republicans live in "CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICAN RED STATES?"

Don't you think that it could in fact be the liberal democrats that live in those states who are just super perverts, thus spurring the numbers that you cite?

The so-called studies, upon which you rely on for your clearly erroneous conclusions, are highly flawed in that they rely upon assumptions and the stereotyping of people premised simply upon geographic location.

Does it ever get tiring or demoralizing getting spanked by the great Hoffa all the time?

LOL, Wilson decries so called red states viewing porn, but can't resist sucking the air out of sporting goods.

If not for the "binders" distraction, there would be no other way to keep people's attention off the fact that the president has never told us what his economic plan is for a second term.

I'm a bit baffled by the whole binders thing as well, other than as a distraction. Maybe some woman who's offended by the thought of Romney keeping the resumes of potential female candidates in binders could explain that for me.

2nd term goals...oblama phones fo all!

And the racist moron is awake.
http://factcheck.org/2009/10/the-obama-phone/

this lady thinks otherwise:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpAOwJvTOio

I sure hope we "keep obabma in president"

Actually, Romney even lied about the binders full of women.

“It was an initiative of women’s organizations, not to force [Romney’s] hand, but to make it be something he had to follow through on,” Carol Hardy-Fanta, former co-chair of MassGAP’s higher education subcommittee. "He didn't go out looking for these binders.”

...and THERE goes the race card...

@ Bob McBride, Binders schminders, it's not at all about the binders :) It was nice that he mentioned that there were enough qualified women that exist out there, in high enough numbers to fill binders. Binders he did not seek out himself, but were in a way, shoved in his face. BUT... the big concern for me was that he didn't answer the question!! Therefore, I can highly assume that he doesn't believe in the notion of paying women fair wages, no matter how qualified they are. He still sees woman as a burden on business, needing "flexible scheduling". Sure, he said he understands, and will help to work on better work schedules (?) yadda, yadda, yadda... But, what every woman took away from all of his patronizing talk was that he didn't commit to a yes answer. His precious votes from big business and his rich cronies mean a lot more to him, than we do. Binders be damned, women shall remain subservient. Ugh :/

Why would you assume that Romney 'doesn't believe in the notion of paying women fair wages, no matter how qualified they are'?

The whole idea that women make 70-some cents for every dollar a man makes because of employer discrimination is flawed. Romney really shouldn't have tried to answer such a bad question, rather Romney should have spent time explaining why the question is flawed, and then pointed to the Obama's administration's failure to pay women equally.

Okay, Pamela. I think you're extrapolating by a long margin, but then again if that's what "every woman took away from all his patronizing talk", he's apparently screwed.

He should probably just drop out now, no?

Bob McBride -

Romney lost the election when he stated "Binders Full of Women" and he doubled down by having it translated into 43 languages, Tagg threatening to go down on the stage and punch President Obama OUT and the coup de grace with Benghazi...

I would prefer he stay in and fight and spend all of Sheldon Adelson’s Billions… President Obama will give him loan money for a small business startup operation to begin again…

Thanks for weighing in, Wilson.

Did someone fart or did Wilson let out more hot air?

@Craig
Once again you show how much your posts are worth.

Mike B -

IF we were going to "keep pounding the most useless things from the debate..." we would all be pounding on Willard.

America does not need a severely mentally troubled CEO BOSS; we need a thoughtful, temperate and stable PRESIDENT...

@ Craig
What???!!!

How do you know he hasn't encountered many, professional qualified women during his career, etc? Did he ask "Where are the men"? If not, why didn't a bipartisan men's group assemble binders and present them to him?

And are you personally offended by this, Bren? Or not? And if so why, and if not, why not?

I'm perfectly willing to engage you and pursue this line of "thinking" - if you are.

Bob, we don't know that he didn't. But let me recycle Mitt Romney's own inaccurate statement, "Where are the women?" Most candidates are thinking about appointments before they are even elected (or should be). But Romney didn't ask for the binders.

As for my personal feelings on the issue, my question is, why did Romney twist events as he did? To what purpose? I am one always who focuses equal attention on why and how people say and write as they do; this can be far more revealing than articulation and conscious intent. A much simpler and on-point answer would have fit the bill much better. It's why I continually suggest that Mitt Romney's worst enemy is his own mouth.

But are you personally offended, Bren? You didn't answer my question. Why are you avoiding the question? It's a simple question. As was the question about why or why not, depending on how you answer the first one, which you didn't answer either.

You should know if you're offended or not without someone having to ask the question and you should probably have indicated it initially. Even after I asked the question, you're avoiding the issue. You know, someone could draw certain conclusions from the fact that you didn't initially indicate whether you were offended or not and certainly some could be drawn from your refusal to answer the questions when put to you directly. At this point, all one can do is wonder why you're avoiding the issue, if you get my drift...

Am I personally offended? No, as the specific issue in MA didn't personally affect me. I would define being personally offended in that way. I am disappointed and frustrated by what certainly could be perceived as another example of gender marginalization. I want the best and brightest around me, fluid thinkers, problem solvers. That comes in every package under the sun. Why limit one's collective potential by worrying about someone's gender, age, race, religion, orientation, etc.

@Bren -

So, would you agree with Hoffa that affirmative action programs seeking quotas of people of certain genders, races, ages, etc in organizations should be ended immediately in favor of a best qualified person for the position period standard?

That wasn't really my point, Bren, but anyways, I'll play along....

:::ahem:::

It sounds like you're troubled more by your own perceptions (to the extent that they're truly unique to you and not simply a predictable and Pavlovian response from someone on a certain side of the political fence - and which mirror those of birds of a feather, so to speak....) than anything. Perhaps a nice green tea enema followed, immediately, by a trip to a different seat in the house where you'll be almost instantaneously relieved of what, from all appearances, troubles you most while simultaneously enhancing your own ability to be a more fluid thinker.

It has to do with potential. If you have say, a George W. Bush, C/C- average with the best education money can buy and optimal homelife, and a nonwhite person from an impoverished U.S. public school system, semi-literate parents, high crime neighborhood in the same or slightly lower range, what does that suggest? It suggests several potentials to me. George is doing his best; George is lazy? The other youth is doing his/her best; the other is bright but dealt with epic obstacles at home and school? There are several things going on here. On the surface, giving the nonwhite kid a scholarship seems like quota filling, but it can also be the break that kid needs to succeed. George's legacy into Yale, on the other hand, could also be seen as preferential treatment. I don't perceive any easy answers here, but I'll always side with giving people a chance.

Bob McBride, your response doesn't match up with what we were discussing so forgive me for not responding.

@Bren -

You also failed to answer Hoffa's question to you - so what exactly was the point of your post other than to blast Bush, yet again?

that is Bushes fault...remember?

Based on a report from a "conservative" British tabloid, the Daily Mail. Have you found this story anywhere else, like WaPost or NYTimes?

Bren, I found it on the Whitehouse.gov website, from Barry himself. Poor Poor Bren, such a lemming.

@Bren
Are facts only credible when then come from a Bren Approved source? I would not expect a biased media to report facts.

H.E., link?

J.B., "Bren" approved = professional news organizations, peer-reviewed research, government data sources, etc. Fox "News" is not a legitimate news source. Tabloids are not legitimate news sources. Someone's blog is not a legitimate news source (although it can be used if it references legitimate news sources).

Is that unreasonable?

@Bren
Then you must pay not attention to MSNBC, CNN, CBS, ABC, New York Times, Washington Post, Journal Sentinal, etc? You simply read scholarly journals and government finance statements?

I thought based on what you read, you would have seen this:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/disclosures/annual-records/2011

@Bren -

You consider Paul Krugman to be a legitimate source!

Bottom line is that Bren is a liberal intellectual elitist - her constant bragging about her own intellect repeatedly on these boards is proof positive of this!

Once again Bren, Hoffa is laughing at the superior intellect!

http://www.hark.com/clips/vjmzqwxfqs-laughing-at-the-superior-intellect

I review many sources of information; all sincere and research-based viewpoints are valuable. I also review talking points for their strategy and intent. Paul Krugman is an Op Ed columnist for the Grey Lady. Opinions are as valuable as the research and data on which they are formed.

I have little tolerance for supposition, surmise, spin, or apocrypha. As Americans I think you too should accept nothing less, and that's from both sides of the aisle. Remember Biden's pre-VP nickname, D-MasterCard. There's varying degrees of me-first in every politician; it's our job to pick the ones who'll best serve our needs. Is that an unreasonable expectation?

@H.E. Pennypacker @J. B. Schmidt

Maybe you should take a look at this explanation as to how White House staffers salaries are determined before offering up uninformed interpretations of a list of salaries. Here is an excerpt, you have the option to inform yourself more thoroughly by reading the entire explanation:

White House salaries are determined based first on the funds available for salaries, then taking into account the role and the level of experience and educational background required of the individual filling that role."
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2009/07/checks_and_balances.html

"...The gender pay gap, around 40¢ to the dollar in the early 1960s, shrank rapidly in the 1980s and early ’90s. It has narrowed by only 4¢ since 1994 and less than 1¢ since 2005, even though younger women have caught up to and surpassed men in education. What’s more, pay difference actually grows as a woman’s career progresses, adding up to hundreds of thousands of dollars on average over a lifetime. Catherine Hill, head of research at the American Association of University Women, found that among college graduates, the pay gap grew from 20¢ on the dollar one year after graduation to 31¢ by the 10th reunion.

Only some of the pay gap is the result of discrimination by employers. Men crowd into high-paying fields like engineering, while women dominate lower-paying fields like education and social service. And women are more likely than men to fall off the career track when they have children. They take time off and lose skills, or they opt for less-demanding jobs so they can spend more time at home. Most fathers, in contrast, manage to skate through parenthood without the slightest harm to their careers. Employers could offer family-friendlier policies on leave and flextime, but they can’t be blamed for dads who don’t do enough around the house..."

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-06-21/equal-pay-plaintiffs-burden-of-proof

@Jim Bob -- You've put your finger on a major problem that has arisen with women's entry into the workforce in large numbers. The 'career track' is still designed on the model of a white-collar worker who can give his/her all to the company, working long hours to get ahead, because there is someone at home to care for the children and the other chores of running a household. Employers want the old employee, while the old world no longer exists.

They also seem to want the old 60 hours per week salaried drone without the traditional agreement that such devotion will be rewarded with advancement or even guaranteed employment. But that's another topic.

Saw this haiku:

Go home make dinner
Binders full of good women
You need prep time too

; )

@Kelly Thanks. It is refreshing to see that someone is really on the ball!

LOLz

google "eat the rich" see what exactly "taxing the rich" would do....
basically sez you couuld take ALL the money (every cent) from every rich person in the US and would not even run the country for three months...the question then comes up...where does the $$ come from then?...

Steve, does your business have a lunch room for employees, with a refrigerator, sink, table(s) and microwave? Just curious...

mammy - We just print it

Bren - I sold all of those amenities along with my business. It is much less stressful living off Obama plus I would have massive layoffs and be bankrupt after obamacare kicks in next year. Better to be ahead of the curve.

@yomammy -- No one is suggesting that we take every penny from the rich. But until we are willing to return to the tax rates in place before the Bush cuts (which were designed to expire and were only to correct a perceived surplus) at least for the top bracket which will not be out on the street because of it, then the folks on the Right should quit yapping about the deficit. Higher revenues = less deficit.

Personal income in the hands of millionaires does not stimulate the economy as much as that same amount of money in the hands of the middle-class, as 2001 through 2008 taught us.

Steve, it's too bad you "sold" off your business and amenities because of Obamacare because you probably would have been eligible to join a consortium.

This is the sort of thing that happens when people accept partisan talking points as truth instead of doing their own homework. On the bright side, we can look forward to many more posts from Steve, the former "Job Creator." ; )

Steve ® -

The only business you ever built was puffery...

@Randy1949 -

Your logic is faulty, as under the Bush tax cuts, the federal government experienced larger revenue collections than under the Clinton rates that you reference. Thus, with all things being equal, going back to the Clinton rates would effectively reduce the amount of revenue collected by the federal government, and seeing as how Obama plans to keep federal spending pretty much where it is today over the next four years should he get another term, we'd have even higher deficits and debts!

Again, if you could please explain the math of Obama's plan to create jobs while balancing the budget, that would be great, as thus far, not a single liberal or Obama supporter on the Patch has been able to do so, or even attempt to do so.

At least Hoffa is able to understand and can explain the Romney/Ryan plan to others!

How can liberals/Obama supporters vote for a man who's plan they don't even comprehend???

Proof once again that the liberal left / Dems are targeting the low information, non-thinking voter!

Less spending = less deficit
something the democrat party is incapable of understanding.

►This is the sort of thing that happens when people accept partisan talking points as truth instead of doing their own homework. ◄

omg I just threw up on my desk laughing so hard

►The only business you ever built was puffery...◄
I didn't build that, someone else made that happen

We've still got all those Bush tax cuts, Hoffa. Where's all the revenue?

Liberal recession hit in 2008
Liberals continue to overspend it by 1 trillion + yearly.

►In the wake of the Treasury Department’s newly released summary of federal spending for 2012, it’s now possible to detail just how profligate the Obama years have been. Here’s the upshot: Under Obama, for every $7 we’ve had, we’ve spent nearly $11 (or, to be more exact, $10.95). That’s like a family that makes $70,000 a year — and is already knee-deep in debt — blowing nearly $110,000 a year.◄

@Steve ® -

What are you going to do with all those Steve ® bucks?

Increase my investments in the Cayman islands and donate the rest to ALEC

@Randy1949 -

Ask Obama, it's his anti-business policies that are keeping the economy from growing and expanding.

If we had as many jobs now as we had under Bush, we'd be seeing that level of revenue again.

Obama's answer was to 'stimulate' the economy by spending borrowed federal dollars, remember? That was supposed to create 8M jobs all by itself, but ha, ha, "shovel ready wasn't as shovel ready as we expected," ha, ha - remember?

Obamacare also sidelined a lot of business investment/expansion, not to mention nearly tripling the amount of federal regulations on businesses.

"If we had as many jobs now as we had under Bush, we'd be seeing that level of revenue again"

The country lost a total of 444k jobs under the presidency of GW Bush!!

July 2005 - 374k job gain. January 2009 - 818k job loss.

Honestly. You watch Maddow. You should know better. Remember the bikini graph???

@FreeThought Troy -

That obviously excludes Bush's final year in office, 2008, which was essentially the culmination of bad carry over policy from the Clinton years - NAFTA, favored trading nation status to China, permitting financial banks to engage in commercial activity, etc.

Just because Hoffa sometimes watches Maddow doesn't make Hoffa a Maddow lemming!

Hoffa has a brain and uses it to think for himself!

Can't talk to republicans all they think about is how to give more money to people who are already filthy rich...

@mhazzard -

Stop drinking the kool-aide - it has made you delusional.

You act as if there is only a finite supply of wealth to go around, and nothing could be further from the truth. Newsflash - Nixon took us off the gold standard over 30 years ago. Ever since doing this, there is quite literally an infinite supply of wealth, limited only by one's desire to create value.

So instead of complaining about the wealthy, get off your butt and go out into the world and actually create something of value for a change instead of living off the value of others!

The women who worked for Romney would disagree with you.

oHHHHH teh NOES!!!! he said "binder" and "women" he must mean women should be shackled!!!!! vote oblama!!!

H.E., have you asked those women? Data I shared earlier indicated that although 14 of 33 new positions appointed under Romney were women, the number of female employees during his time in office fell.

Women worked for Romney?

Wow - I didn't know that. I guess I just must have overlooked all the women in the photos of the Bain Capital Partners with all the dollar bills haning from their mouths and ears, etc.

So Bren, you support that there should be preferential treatment for women and affirmative action to make sure there are more woman than men?

Beth: Life beginning with contraception?

Brian Dey, I think people should get paid based on their experience and resume, not have up to 23% knocked from their salary because of their gender. I've seen a number of times when a female takes over a management position from a male and the title is "dumbed down" (not my expression) but not the amount of work (that usually increases). The salaries also fell. Would every instance, across companies, be budget-based alone? I don't discriminate.

Bren:

Please cite where women are systematically getting paid 23% less because of their gender. There have been at least a couple of links posted that claim that discrimination might account for something around 5% of that pay differential.

Ummmm - Beth - you are a TROLL who keeps posting the same links over and over on different topics - you are a plant - much like robocalls.....I do not think you are a "real" person.....

H.E. Pennypacker, Obama doesn't control the trust.

In contrast, Romney does control his blind trust and calls it a "sham", and you can find a video of him saying so from 1994 on YouTube.com.

Over all, big picture, Romney has way more money, hundreds of millions more, than Obama.

You didnt read the article, typical liberal. Article proves your ignorance.

I just read the article. Apples and oranges. Romney may not have a public 'pension' but he sure has a big fat IRA, which very likely has some Chinese investments in it. So does his Bain capital gains income, which pays more per year than Barack Obama's pensions ever will.

Not apples and oranges....pensions are guaranteed....private investments, no.

Randall will you ever learn?

The topic at hand was Chinese investment and whose bread was buttered the most by them, not the difference between a pension and an IRA.

And don't call me Randall.

@Randy1949 -

There's a big difference between a pension and the Irish Republican Army ;-)

Yes, Hoffa, it's an unfortunate acronym for an Individual Retirement Account, which supposedly Mitt Romney has, as opposed to a pension. And maybe you could explain to me how Mitt ends up having so much money in his. Last time I did a tax return, the amount a person could contribute to an IRA was limited. Either I'm not up on tax law, or Mitt's investments did really, really well.

@Randy1949 -

Sorry, but Hoffa never studied Mitt's IRA's in detail, as Hoffa prefers to focus his efforts in this election on the real issues that actually matter.

I beg to differ with you, Hoffa. You're usually so conversant with tax law and financial matters. All you had to do was tell me that it's quite legal to endow your IRAs with extra funds -- just not that those funds will be tax deductible for that year. I'd really like to know if that's the case.

@Randy1949 -

To tell you the correct answer, Hoffa would have to know exactly what Romney has, and Hoffa has not bothered to dig into Romney's finances - sorry.

But you are correct in that certain kinds of IRA's, additional contributions are possible but are not immediately tax deductible.

But you can look this stuff up online yourself. How can you reasonably expect a media industry that crams news into bullets/sound bytes to provide in-depth coverage on anything? Who decides what is newsworthy? Who dictates whether presenting that information is beneficial to the parent company?

Bren: Not all voters will "look it up" online. Many people believe anything on the news is truthful, and if it is in the newspaper, then it is correct. This is particularily true of seniors, who have relied on 'printed truth' for their entire lives.
Those who do not have the means or the ambition to fact check for themselves will watch NBC and say, "Well there you go, I know who I am voting for."

In a couple of months we will see News Promos with Winter Storm coming as the lead in. (because self promotion of the news is big money)
After 2" of snow one would think people would change to another news channel, but other channels pull the same crap.

If a company runs TV adds claiming to cure cancer or diabetes with a magic potion, they are subject to fines for false ads. The same should apply to Candidate's ads, if they are false they should be fined. Both Parties would have some serious reflecting to do.

Bren- That is a bunch of bull and you know it. We have 24/7 news channels that let us know of every mishap of anyone who they don't agree with. I would think that the biggest "lie" of the night, as well as the media assist in perpetuating that lie, would garner more than the the casual drive-by.

Craig -

"Bangladesh?"

Brother Craig, please try and keep up...

Craig, I absolutely agree about the fines for false campaign ads. Citizens United and the rise of Super PACs makes disciplining a candidate nearly impossible, however. A lot of the garbage coming out in ads this cycle is funded by Super PACs. Repealing CU has to be a priority.

Brian Dey, of course it isn't bull. There's always spin. And these days, with cable, there's even more.

Here's a fairly recent an offensive example. Just after Hurricane Katrina, I was at a gathering. CNN was on. The story was about looting in New Orleans. We counted the repeated use of the same video clip (man smash-and-grabbing in a trashed convenience store) 19 times in one hour. A particularly unenlightened guest sneered and said, "Look at all of those criminals." Trying to get this person to focus on the screen and realize it was one smash-and-grab, repeated 18 times became the unintended entertainment of the gathering. (It was unsuccessful. The guest left believing they had witnessed 19 smash-and-grabs.)

To what purpose? Lurid headlines draw viewers #1. And CNN transformed at least one person's perception of the post-Katrina chaos into a highly negative viewpoint.

Wilson I bow to your perfection and greatness. Bangladesh/ Benghazi what difference does it make anyway? You deny the truth regardless.
No thanks about trying to keep up with you, I would rather keep my decency than be paired with an air filled tool such as yourself. What does that tattoo around your navel say the air pressure should be?

Craig -

"Bangladesh/ Benghazi what difference does it make anyway?"

This is the Wishful Thinking of the entire GOP...

We are attacked by al Qaeda from Afghanistan, so, in retaliation whom should we attack, Mexico, Canada, Cayman Islands or Iraq… what difference does it make anyway?

GOP groupthink and Magical Thinking says… Iraq!

Lucy In the Sky, With Diamonds!

Someone needs a nice soothing cup of tea... ; )

and a shot of Jack .

@Hoffa
I would tend to agree with you on this topic(did I say that?) but can you explain the actions of Governor Romney when he sought out women for his MA cabinet posts after get a list of qualified candidates that contained only men? Sounds kind of like affirmative action to me...

@John Feia -

When did Hoffa ever state that he affirmatively agreed with all of Romney's proposals/positions?

@Hoffa, see below. I understand the issue was one of bringing suit in a timely manner. 'Timely' now means after you discover the problem, even if it's been going on for thirty years already.

My understanding is that it was a statute of limitations thing -- she didn't discover the long-term pay inequity until it was too late. The Ledbetter act remedies that situation, too late for Lily, but not for subsequent women in the same position.

She waited six years to file the complaint.

►Ledbetter's testimony before Congress has been criticized because she represented that she did not learn of the pay disparity until shortly before the complaint, but her earlier sworn deposition testimony indicated that she discovered the pay disparity as early as 1992, six years before filing the complaint in 1998.◄

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lilly_Ledbetter

Blaming the victim, Steve? Nice. So it's Ledbetter's fault for not filing the claim for six years. That's what she gets, right? It's nice to see you've never been discriminated against. Affirmative Action is nothing in comparison.

I'm not making an opinion, only reporting what happened and where to get more information. Steve ® has no opinion on her, but Steve ®'s only opinion is Obama does use her as a political tool.

Steve ® personally would not wait six years to file a complaint about money. But as a business owner this comes naturally. Would I just sit by, letting $100,000+ not be transferred into my account? No. I would have quit or filed a complaint.

Steve ® reports, you decide.

I just read the Wiki, Steve, and it's ambiguous. Being told by a supervisor that your pay is low is not exactly actionable proof. I'd need to read justice Ginsberg's minority opinion.

If 6 years isn't long enough, what seems to be a reasonable time period, Troy? The normal statute of limitations is 3 years.

Lilly Ledbetter was a supervisor at Goodyear Tire and Rubber’s plant in Gadsden, Alabama, from 1979 until her retirement in 1998. For most of those years, she worked as an area manager, a position largely occupied by men. Initially, Ledbetter’s salary was in line with the salaries of men performing substantially similar work. Over time, however, her pay slipped in comparison to the pay of male area managers with equal or less seniority. By the end of 1997, Ledbetter was the only woman working as an area manager and the pay discrepancy between Ledbetter and her 15 male counterparts was stark: Ledbetter was paid $3,727 per month; the lowest paid male area manager received $4,286 per month, the highest paid, $5,236.

In this case, the time limit was 180 days.

@FreeThought Troy & @Randy1949 -

Did either of your read the Court's Opinion in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 550 U.S. 618 (2007)?

Apparently not.

The Court held that Ledbetter could sue for injuries occurring beyond the statute of limitation requirements of both the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (180 days of discovery) and the Equal Pay Act of 1963 (3 years of discovery) if she could "prove that she did not, and could not, have discovered the discrimination earlier."

The required proof and holding on the discovery of discrimination issue was never a part of her original claim at the trial court level, and was therefor never at issue in any of her appeals, because, as Steve ® correctly pointed out, according to her pre-trial deposition testimony, she had actually discovered the discrimination years prior to filing her action.

Essentially, Ledbetter screwed up. She had a remedy available at law, but chose not to exercise it, for whatever reason, until it was too late.

Statutes of limitation exist for a reason - to provide certainty to all involved.

And in this case, the Court was more than willing to apply the discovery rule, which extends the SOL to the date of actual discovery of the discriminatory conduct by the Plaintiff.

Bottom line is that she chose to be untimely. So instead of playing by the rules, she decided to try to change the law.

The Ledbetter Act is little more than a political pander to women by the Democratic Party!

CowDung. The definition of reasonable. That is a very sliding scale. I imagine that is why statutes of limitations where placed originally as reasonable is such a sliding scale. Ledbetter opened the door to the scale to be sliding. We don't know why Lily waited so long. Did she let it go for a while and it just knawed at her? Did she want the payoff? The fame? Was she looking for the right lawyer? How many turned her down? We may never know (unless she writes her tell all - I am sure that would make up for some of the lost money).

Anyway... money will always be a touchy issue. I know, as the father of daughters, I find out one of my girls got cheated, I want 'em sueing. I don't care how long it is.

@JRH -- Didn't I just say that I haven't read either the majority or the minority SCOTUS decision? That said, now you're expecting me to take your 'distillation' of the issues as gospel, and we're back to possible bias.

Truly, where's the problem in making it a little easier for women to have their day in court regardless of when and how they discovered the problem? They'd still have to win the case on the actual merits.

@Randy1949 -

Essentially, you're arguing against statutes of limitation.

And even in the Ledbetter case, the 'discovery rule' was used to extend the SOL on her claims.

SOLs provide all parties with an equal playing field and certainty.

@Hoffa -- If I understand Justice Ginsberg's minority opinion, the issue is over when the SOL begins. Ginsberg's was that it began on the date of one's last discriminatory paycheck, as opposed to when the complainant first suspected she might have been discriminated against. I'm sure you know it takes time to get actual proof -- more than just the statement of a supervisor who may or may not back you up. By 1997, as the Wiki said, the differences in Ledbetter's pay from her male counterparts was 'stark'. And then you have to find a lawyer willing to take the case.

@Randy1949 -

That's correct - the whole case had to do with when did the clock on the applicable SOL start running. There was precedent case law on the books already stating that the clock starts running upon the plaintiff's discovery of the discrimination.

The minority wanted to essentially change the law with this case under the theory of a new and unique act of discrimination starting upon the issuance of every paycheck she received.

The majority chose to follow the principle of stare decisis, siding with the precedent law stating that it starts when the pattern of discriminatory behavior is first discovered by the Plaintiff, because of the reasons and principles upon which SOL's are implemented.

To side with the minority would have discredited the legislatures reasoning and intent in including a SOL on the laws in the first place - judicial activism to the extreme.

As it was, Ledbetter had 180 days after the date she first realized the discrimination to file under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, or 3 years after such date under the Equal Pay Act of 1963.

She did not bring suit until nearly 6 years after the fact.

In the law, if you snooze, you sometimes lose.

But that doesn't mean that she wasn't entitled to equal pay as a right, as some of the leftists/liberals here appear to think in claiming that Romney doesn't believe that women should have equal pay - that's leftist propaganda and you know it!

Hoffa, don't lay the 'lefty propaganda' charge on me, because i understand the distinction. However, as I'm sure you know, the secrecy about other people's salaries in the workplace makes this kind of discrimination very hard to discover and even harder to prove. Certainly a lot harder than being told you can't sit down and eat at a lunch counter. This is why Congress and the President saw fit to change the law.

So, because the Ledbetter Act allows the complainant extra time to assemble a case, you call it pandering to women?

Romney didn't actually answer the question. He did talk about some women needing flexible schedules to go home and make dinner. That no doubt is true, it was interesting that his mind went there.

@Randy1949 -

Yes - because the 'discovery rule' already applied to the pre-existing laws!

If the 'discovery rule' hadn't already applied to the pre-existing laws, then Hoffa would agree with you. But it did!

Ledbetter had either 180 days or three years AFTER she concretely discovered that the discrimination was occurring in which to file suit.

Why do you think that's not reasonable and that she needed even more time to file suit?

@Bren -

The question was:

"In what new ways do you intend to rectify the inequalities in the workplace, specifically regarding females making only 72 percent of what their male counterparts earn?"

If Romney doesn't see any inequalities in the work place based on wage disparity, as the questioner specifically asked, because we already have existing laws on the books to deal with such, then how exactly is he to answer the question, other than exactly how he did?

To the contrary, Obama failed to answer quite a few question asked of him!

Equal pay laws are a difficult subject, bringing a mixed bag.

They tend to discourage / have a chilling effect against merit based pay.

Example: Hoffa owns/operates a small restaurant, as you know. Let's say that Hoffa has two cooks, one male and one female. Now, let's supposed that Hoffa starts out paying them the same and they both do the same amount of work. Over the course of a year, Hoffa begins to notice that he receives far more praise/compliments from customers about the food when the male is working vs when the female is working even though she also receives plenty of compliments, and as we all know, satisfaction spurs return business. So, Hoffa bumps up the salary of the male cook, despite the fact they both do the same amount of work. All of sudden the female cook finds out that she's being paid less and goes to an attorney. Now all of a sudden, Hoffa has legal expenses and a big headache.

Is that right?

SOLs are good and right as they equalize the playing field for litigants. Over time, memories fade, people move and become not easily accessible for testimony, records get misplace or destroyed, etc.

That's why the laws on the books were sufficient - especially since the 'discovery rule' already applied to them and gave potential plaintiffs more than enough time to file suit, 180 days and three years, respectively, after discovering that the alleged discrimination was taking place.

Is that unreasonable?

The LLA should be repealed!!!

JRH -

The LLA should remain and be significantly enhanced to reduce both the costs involved in filing and the threshold of proof. [Remember here that Walker eliminated the state equal pay protection act.] The entire GOP does not acknowledge any pay discrepancy between men and women, mainly because of groupthink and Magical Thinking.

Now, if you would care to use your massive legal expertise to repeal LLA, please just do it. I hope that you will find strike 3 here, as you completely failed in stopping ACA, which you in your monumental hubris declared unconstitutional, and your prediction that Van Hollen would get his STAY was equally inaccurate. Your record in the legal arena is simply awesomely poor…

I am not surprised, as our legal system does not function around a faux lawyer’s ego.

@Lyin' John Wilson -

In your response, you failed to address 1) how equal pay legislation acts to discourage merit based pay (as exemplified by Hoffa), and 2) why the the laws already on the books are not sufficient to protect women from discrimination.

Ergo, your empty arguments fall flat with no logical support in reality.

JRH -

Equal pay legislation does NOT discourage merit based pay (Period). If you INFORM your employees in WRITING, have them sign the employee agreement. It is only the stupid and corrupt employer, who changes policy at will, which needs to be a bit worried. Wise business people would create hierarchical levels of cooks, with real world – not GOP WISHFUL THINKING metrics – to CYA and explain these to their employees, so that the REAL WORKERS would understand and not be inclined to take MASTER to court or complain.

The current laws are not sufficient because they require too much documentation; this documentation mostly is clearly well outside of the employee’s ability to obtain. We have a grossly unequal playing field here, mainly because the employer has all the power, all the paperwork – to manipulate at will – and all the specifics within the law on their side, because Walker, the Chamber of Commerce and ALEC have written them to favor the MASTER.

It takes money to file a lawsuit, and file the massive amounts of paperwork; lawyers, even taking a case on a contingency fee basis, will not front these costs. Hence, you have a person without a job, blackballed from getting a new job because all employers talk with each other about these TRAITORS and a legal system that says, “Well, we need to file these forms and they cost $1,500 for now, but there may be more. Nice system for the MASTER…

@Lyin' John Wilson -

To the contrary - see Hoffa's example about how equal pay legislation discourages merit based pay. You want all small businesses to create a dedicated HR department to come up with standardized metrics for salary - yeah, that's definitely realistic all right! Proof that you've never run a small business a day in your life!

And the current filing fee in federal district court is $350, not $1,500. And if you've truly been wronged and can prove your case in court, you'll get that fee back in the judgement. Contrary to popular believe, you don't need a lawyer to file an action. A person with mere initiative can pull case files of similar successful cases and use those filings as a template to initiate their own cause of action. If the federal judge believes that the case has merit and that the plaintiff can't afford an attorney on their own, the Court will appoint one if they believe it to be necessary.

Once again, you're striking out!

Mr. Hoffa, do you conduct employee evaluations? Are you tallying customer service surveys to get your results? The argument could be made that you are rewarding one employee based on a perception. And if you don't have employee evaluations that include identification of goals/need areas, it would be tough to justify why one employee is paid more than another.

Now, let's "say" on my team there are two subordinates, one male, one female, both hired about the same time. Terminal degrees from outstanding educational institutions in the same field. No difference in performance to-date.

@Bren -

Most small businesses do not keep written records, conduct formal employee evaluations, or conduct formal customer surveys - it's based on the perceptions of management, as most small businesses cannot afford a dedicated HR department. That's just unrealistic.

As it stands, the average gross profit margin of Hoffa's restaurant is about $20k deriving from $300k in revenues/sales. If Hoffa had to do all the extra crap that you'd require, it would completely eat up the profit and Hoffa would shut down the restaurant putting all his employees out of work.

It would also be tough to prove that the disparity was resultant of gender discrimination. All Hoffa would have to do is testify under oath that the male received more compliments from patrons, and that is what justified his pay increase over that of the female's. He could also call some of the regular patrons to testify to corroborate How would you prove beyond a preponderance of the evidence that Hoffa was lying and it was really resultant of gender discrimination?

But the mere threat of having to engage in such litigation, which is costly for a business because they must hire counsel (unlike the individual plaintiff that can self represent), makes the smart small business owner scared to engage in such merit based pay arrangements wherein one gender could claim unfounded discrimination and cause the business to have to run up $30k worth of legal bills in defending against such unfounded claims.

JRH –

Boffa, I am sorry, I did not know what game you were playing today, baseball, GOTTCHA, HS name-calling, spanking fetish, I won because I say I won…

IF you want to equate a few pages of typed employee material to a full-scale HR department, then you have a point; however, this really sounds like a feeble and sad argument. If you are that lazy, you probably should not be in business.

The $350.00 INITIAL FILING FEE IN FEDERAL COURT is only the start… motions, discovery costs, investigators, witnesses, etc. all go well beyond that simple filing process. You attempt to make it seem that all a person, with no job and no money has to do to file a work discrimination case is to throw a few pieces of paper together, along with $350.00 and wait for the court to rule and check the mail for your money. How disingenuous can you get?

Almost everyone knows that you don’t need a lawyer to represent you in your case; you are a fool if you don’t get an attorney, are an attorney and represent yourself or, your suggestion, get a court appointed attorney. The MASTER is going to have a first rate attorney, you are going to have some slug that can’t find any clients and really could care less about you and your case, however, they will go through the motions…

Bottom line, you are a misogynist GOP lemming who simply does not believe in EQUAL PAY FOR EQUAL WORK – the party orthodoxy – and it really is as simple as that.

@Lyin' John Wilson -

Hoffa believes in merit pay, period - your pay should reflect your level of performance irregardless of gender, race, age, nationality, etc.

You'll have to forgive Hoffa - he forgot that he was engaging with someone who honestly believes that Hoffa really didn't build his small business, but that "somebody else made that happen." Of course you don't understand where Hoffa is coming from, with an attitude/perception like that of your MASTER.

And no, the legal landscape is not as bleak, or expensive, as you make it out to be for someone who is self representing - Hoffa has represented himself on many occasions and is currently undefeated is such regard!

JRH -

"Hoffa believes in merit pay, period - your pay should reflect your level of performance irregardless of gender, race, age, nationality, etc."

Yes, Boffa, of course you do...

"And no, the legal landscape is not as bleak, or expensive, as you make it out to be for someone who is self representing - Hoffa has represented himself on many occasions and is currently undefeated is such regard!"

Of course, Boffa, you said so; we believe you... you also leap buildings with a single leap... we know...

In addition, of course, there is the totally self-made businessman, whose family gave him the Road Kill Rest. The word NEPOTISM comes to mind here!

Gosh, my family gave me the business, but I’m a self-made businessman; Willard had the same hard life, really had to work hard to be a self-made businessman.

Boffa, do not really like pulling the coat off your corpulent derriere, but you are as phony as a $4 bill!

@Lyin' John Wilson -

Nothing was given to Hoffa by anyone - everything Hoffa has, Hoffa earned.

You're just sour because most of what you have was given to you by the federal government via the redistribution of others hard work and efforts - and Hoffa and others are trying end such an abuse by our government!

You're a sad human being Lyin' John Wilson!

Romney is leading by 7?

HIDE YOUR CHILDREN!! It must be a conspiracy! There is bias in the polls! There is bias everywhere! OUR COUNTRY IS DOOMED!!!!!!! HELLFIRE! BRIMSTONE! ARMAGEDDON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Oh, sorry, guess I was channeling FoxNews Conservatives and TeaParty Republicans.

I'm ok, now. Whew... living like that is exhausting.

Fun part of it all is they are still oversampling democrats, and Romney is up in the polls.

@Steve, Where did you get your sampling demographics on the Gallup poll?

All of the Gallup sampling is based on the turnout level of the 2008 election. Nationally, turnout is expected to be 10% lower this time. Also, according to CNN and ABC Nes, Gallup has had an oversampling of Democrats by as much as 10%.

Here is how they actually do it. As you can see, the likely voter poll is not weighted and the larger poll is weighted by census statistics:
("As has always been the case," Newport stressed in his announcement, "we do not attempt to weight the composition of the likely voter sample in any way -- such as by political party or race or age -- to approximate some guess of what we or others think it should look like demographically on Election Day" (emphasis added). Gallup weights the larger adult sample to match Census estimates, but take no further steps to adjust the demographics of likely voters.)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/10/gallup-poll-changes_n_1955949.html

Personal responsibility expected by a lefty? Maybe the wrong man was elected in '08.

Hear that sound? It's the loss of the female vote in 2016 if not sooner. I'll be the first to admit that A-holes exist on the Left as mush as on the Right.

Actually, her former employee did have an option. Quit.

@Greg Romney talked about closing tax loopholes but gave no specifics. Obama talked about spending cuts bot gave no specifics either. Both sides are afraid to offend anyone, which makes both sides just spineless!

Beth Norquist -

Just watched the link; it is great!

Probably a waste of typing for most of the folks on this blog; they are all out trying to buy Binders Full of Women or are attempting to get some Magic Underwear...

@Beth Norquist & @John Wilson -

You do realize that this same thing could be done for Obama, only to a much larger extent (with all his broken promises and contradictions from his original campaign and term as President), don't you?

mau -

I watched Willard's Magical Underwear - cult version 5 and read Binders Full of Women... I now know where my vote is going...

Funny you say you know where your vote is going, you've had your head stuck up your ass much longer.

@mau
You took time from watching FOX News to watch that to be informed? You are funny...

Again Craig, Thanks for your insightful input.

You're welcome, if you need help with the extraction process just push really hard. You may find another set of brains.

@John Feia, very intuitive on your part. I do indeed watch Milwaukee Fox6 News on occasion.

@John Wilson, please tell me what Willard's Magical Underwear are? Where can I purchase a copy of the book Binders Full of Women.

@mau == Google'Mormon temple garment' for an explanation of the magic underwear.

@Randy1949, I was just messing with him. I have several Mormon friends so I am familiar with the garments. Also had an aunt who was a Catholic nun who had to wear special undergarments.

Quoting a blog on heritage.org hardly lends credibility to your arguments...

JMB -

I guess I fail to see how this relates to the TOPIC: Binders Full of Women

Over 3,000 died on 9/11, while Bush & Cheney IGNORED actionable warnings... talk with me, Oh toothless wonder... let us get into all the American deaths after that too, still going up today...

You'll have to see Boffa for your "Magic Underwear..." you already have the "Magical Thinking..."

another "bushes fault"...the go-to blathering of the left...

The problem with green energy is that most systems have a ten year payback. A large investment to begin with, and a ten year life expectancy. Carter tried desperately to get solar use growing with tax incentives. The incentives just raised the cost of the solar products so there was more profit for the manufacturer.
Here we are 30+ years later still wishing for the same heaven sent green energy device to save us all.

WEACHATER –

I don’t know what this has to do with the TOPIC: Binders Full of Women

Alternative Energy SUCCESSES: Need MORE?

http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2012/10/solarcity-announces-expansion-in-new-york-files-for-200-million-ipo

http://www.energy.siemens.com/us/en/power-generation/renewables/?stc=usccc025486

http://www.epa.gov/renewableenergyland/successstories.htm

http://www.acornenergy.com/companies?gclid=CJiovcfRi7MCFQVgMgodOQ4A5A

http://resources.nei.org/ads/jobs/?utm_source=google&utm_medium=cpc&utm_term=renewable%20energy%20jobs&utm_content=18137758687&utm_campaign=Search%20-%20PF%20-%20Jobs&gclid=CNz43uPRi7MCFVBgMgodfVsARw

http://www.osti.gov/accomplishments/NRELprofiles.html

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-08-23/romney-s-energy-plan-ignores-the-success-of-solar-and-wind-view.html

Turning renewable energy ideas into business success.
byrneltd.com/documents/websiteprofile.pdf

Having Gerbers tonight again ?

AWD -

Be careful what you look forward to... [insert tears, frustration and anger here]

BTW, Bren, Randy and the other Libs probably think the Obama-drinking money comment is out of line, but I am willing to bet it is alot more prevalent than they think.

I'd be willing to bet the 50 bucks Schmitzy still owes Hoffa!

why work whne you can sit home and watch honey boo boo reruns and live off uncle sugar?

yomammy,

I know you are trying to piggyback off my post, but that comment was way out or line.

It is not so much the people that are utilizing welfare, but the structure of the entitlement system the Liberals keep promoting each year. They just don't realize the irony of whining about Johnny Richboy who has done nothing with his life except life off his trust fund, while pushing more an more people to live off the government. Or maybe they do realize it and are taking advantage of it for votes.

Work to Welfare did make an effort to move people off of welfare and into successful productive lives. Unfortunately, so many exceptions and loopholes were added over the years it is dead.

This election is about getting people on welfare educated for a vibrant economy with more productive jobs. And that economy will only come if we get Barack Hussein Obama out of office NOW! Barack Hussein Obama and his fellow Liberals will only tax the rich to pay for their social programs.

We need to put an economic system in place to get people to "step up" and get off welfare!

It might help if Johnny Richboy hadn't created more people who need unemployment and food stamps by restructuring their jobs our offshoring them.

I'm all for people working, but if you force them to take jobs at less than subsistence wages, you still need a few programs like food stamps and Medicaid to help them along.

@Randy1949 -

You're a smart guy and probably had some economics classes somewhere along the line, right? So, you must realize that demand is a far more powerful force than supply, right?

And yet, you blame Johnny Richboy for outsourcing jobs instead of blaming Stupid Greedy Average American Consumer for demanding cheap products.

Don't you think that you're pointing the finger at the wrong person here? Is it just easier to blame the rich guy because it plays into the class warfare strategy of the Democratic Party?

Hoffa, we were discussing why people might need to be on government assistance like unemployment benefits, Medicaid, and food stamps, and it's because they either have no job or a job that pays a whole lot less than their old one.

First of all, can you really blame someone in a position like that for buying the cheapest underwear and socks they can find? That;'s just economic prudence. But second, can you prove to me that the offshoring happens out of pure necessity rather than just the attempt to improve profits, which are then not passed fully onto the consumer? I'm told that the Sensata plant in Freeport Illinois (non union) has been profitable but the jobs are going to China anyway.

@Randy1949 -

Are you an accountant for Sensata or Bain? How do you know what their financial position is? And what is their competition doing, or does Sensata have a monopoly?

PS -- Thanks for the compliment, but I never did take and classes in economics per se. My college career was in the liberal and fine arts. However, I can read enough to educate myself, and supply and demand is a pretty basic concept.

No, Hoffa, neither company has opened its books to me. This is all the info I have: "To be sure, this is a horrible situation for the Sensata employees – the vast majority of whom have not yet found other employment (Honeywell hired just a small number of folks to work in its other Freeport facilities). After all, Sensata has never suggested that the plant was unprofitable. It simply thinks the effort would be more profitable elsewhere." http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/2012/09/18/why-romney-cant-save-the-sensata-workers/

The article goes on to say that this is not within Mitt Romney's ability to change. However, it might be within the ability of the US government to discourage this kind of business practice with strategic taxes on foreign made products, as you were suggesting yourself.

@Randy1949 -

Let's assume for a minute that you're right - that it's all Johnny Richboy's fault for acting out of sheer greed and short term profits.

But, if Stupid Greedy Average American Consumer didn't buy the products produced by the jobs that Johnny Richboy off-shored, then where would Johnny Richboy unload all of his cheap products in order to get himself even richer?

See - Stupid Greedy Average American Consumer is actually more powerful than Johnny Richboy.

Thus, if you really want to blame someone, shouldn't you be blaming the people with the most power to determine the resultant outcomes of the situation?

Well, Hoffa, I don't have much control over which automobiles those Sensata sensors go into -- could be some American-made ones -- and it's only going to be a few dollars off the price of the final product. You can't blame the consumer for that one. Buying a cheap iPad, yeah.

@Randy1949 -

That all depends upon your priorities.

Anti, I've known a few people who have been on welfare. The experience could be categorized as a humiliating loss of dignity and privacy.

I have learned in my life that there are wonderful people in this world who operate in different modes, and some of these modes are not ones that our world in general deems successful. I know intelligent, caring people who cannot function in an office setting because of psychological disorders. There is no reasonable accommodation that will help them succeed. People like this are among those who end up on "the system." I believe that the vast majority of people want success and independence. Who wouldn't? But there are those that are unable to follow traditional paths. We as a society have to accept that, I think. There have been marginalized people in society since the dawn of social structure.

Our President is a parasite? Please elaborate. Do you even know what the definition of a parasite is?

John I do ... AWD is a parasite.

What an intelligent comment...

John ... these people on here are idots.

wow....really? I suggest you stop posting and go back to the basement.

what was the question?
The only criticism he got was from the extreme left conspiriacy theorists...Also, when was bush criticizing oblama about the 4?

Craig ... I dont think either one was born here in Wisconsin

Great, you can vote twice for Mitt and once for Obama

I am voting for the guy who was born here.

Hoffa is voting for the guy that actually refers to America as being his "home country."

JRH -

"Hoffa is voting for the guy that actually refers to America as being his "home country."

I am shocked, just shocked I tell you... who would have thunk?

AWD ... The Racist.

One: Obama did not come up with the free cell phone. Put it to rest already.

Two:
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

The private sector is gaining jobs. Really-really. I don't care how much you TeaParty Conservatives say the same inaccurate statements over and over - and OVER AND OVER, the private sector is gaining jobs.

There are times facts are fact. No amount of dishonest vitriol can change that.

Please (please) put those arguments to rest.

Let's just not get TOO excited about the employment picture at this point...

http://articles.marketwatch.com/2012-10-18/economy/34538387_1_forecast-claims-jobless-claims-first-time-claims

....We've got a long way to go before we're out of the woods, we've yet to really address the core causes (some of which we as a country have no ability to address) and accept the inevitable effects continued technological advances have had and will continue to have in that regard.

Presidents have a very limited number of things they can do to effect the economy and employment. The degree to which those things actually work and play a part in the ups and downs is, generally, grossly overstated for political purposes.

What it comes down to this time around is a difference between a plan that mortgages the future in order to achieve short-term employment gains without really addressing the core problems, or one that attempts to "bring jobs back" by cutting back on spending and taxes and that, also, doesn't really address the core problems.

Troy: You are right about the free cell phones, it was not Obama's idea. Buy like any goverment program it is now being misused. Ads on TV to get an ObamaPhone is a prime example. The motgage crisis was initiated by Carter (though not his fault), it was a well intentioned program to help minorities become homeowners. Each subsequent Administration expanded on this program until it included jumbo loans- this was the straw that broke the camel's back. Jumbo Loans were typically held by white middle class people which was not the origional intent on the program.
What is next, ads on TV for help you to get food stamps?

@Craig -

Glad to see that you're finally learning the MO of the Obama definition of 'job security.'

@McBride -

You're right - the biggest thing that we can do as a nation to reinvigorate the job/employment market here to revamp our trade policy away from free trade and towards fair trade, just as Hoffa has been constantly pushing for over the last two years.

JRH: Finally? I have been harping on this subject for over a year. It seems to fall on deaf ears as most people prefer to pretend all is well. We can educate the hell out of our people and it will do nothing to build manufacturing jobs. The less intelligent kids grow up and need to work also. Those of average intelligence need work after trade school or whatever BS degree they obtain.
We can't go back and take away China's Most Favored Nation status, so we must find a way to compete with them. We certainly can not lower the minimum wage to 30 cents an hour, so we need to compete by making China play fair. Then there is Korea, Vietnam, etc...
At least Romney has a plan for that, Obama has nothing. We have wasted four years by doing nothing. It has emboldened China, and made them stronger. Another four years of doing nothing WILL result in having only service and government jobs left here. That will destroy our GDP and make our Debt insurmountable.

@Craig -

Hoffa knows - he was being sarcastic ;-)

Trying to have a little fun and lighten the mood after Schmitzy and Wilson decided to be sore losers.

JRH: Craig knows you were being sarcastic, I just took the opportunity to reiterate why Big Government always = waste. With all the 'intellectuals' who claim to know history so well, seems they can't remember the past 30 years of screw ups.
If they did remember who screwed us over, maybe they would come over to the bright side.
;-)

@Craig -

While our side admittedly isn't perfect either, it's far better than what the leftist Democrats are offering!

Hoffa: Exactly! Take away the "D" and the "R", and weigh the proposals to fix the issues ( or lack of proposals ), and the choice is abundantly clear.
When a company is faced with serious financial troubles, management sits down and brainstorms ideas to fix the problem. The ideas are weighed as a group to determine which direction to follow. Rarely if ever does the management decide to keep doing things as usual and expect a different result.
At least "R"omney and "R"yan are putting ideas on the table. Obama just wants to finish his mission- hell, he even abandoned his 'hope and change' theme.

Self confidence is a great thing Troy. I'm guessing I've been around a bit longer than you and I've seen bundles of self-confidence collapse time and time again.

What we're facing this time around is unprecedented. As much as I hate the term, we're up against a new world order. The progressive platform completely ignores where future growth patterns are going to be. Education, clean energy and infrastructure will not put bread on the table very long. Energy independence has more to do with foreign relations than it does with improving the economy. Educating people whose talents are more in demand in other areas of the world than here won't improve our economy. Infrastructure that supports nothing lies dormant, again not contributing to our economy.

Pick an industry that makes something consumers buy and look where the growth in facilities that produce those products is occurring. Look at the company that, currently, is our most successful producer of tech products for the consumer and where they make their stuff. It's not here. If it was, you couldn't afford it and they'd be a fraction of what they currently are.

We've never faced this in the past in this country. Nobody, progressives or conservatives, has a plan that properly addresses the twin threats of technological job replacement and the rise of a world economy. The choice, between two distinctly different approaches is not a good one, regardless of which on we choose.

@FreeThought Troy -

Because every time we've trusted progressives in the past, it has cost us boatloads of money that were essentially flushed down the toilet. Remember all those high-rise public housing projects that were built across the nation shortly after WWII? How many trillions in adjusted dollars did we spend on that debacle only to see them abused by their residents and eventually torn down?

The new debacle is the so-called investment in green energy, high speed rail, etc.

And most of the time, the money for these public projects end up going to Democratic Party campaign contributors/bundlers. It's crony capitalism/socialism.

And we're getting sick of giving our money so that you fund this BS!

Let the free market pick the winners and losers!!! Give the people the choice!!!

The only jobs being created by green energy are in bankruptcy courts.

Troy: You are right that Solar has potential. It has potential to create jobs as well. If we dump buckets of money into solar energy companies, they will hire people to manufacture the goods. When the buckets are used up- they will outsource. Even with 6 weeks on a boat from China, the final costs will be much lower than building the panels here. China is a major player in the World economy now, this is something we can't take back.
We need to get manufacturing jobs back on US soil- I think we all agree with that.
The question is how?
Romney has a plan which includes preventing China from manipulating their currency, and changing the Corporate tax rate to even the playing field with other Countries. That alone is likely not enough, but it is better than doing nothing.
What has Obama done?

@Bob McBride We cannot compete with the third world- our cost of living is too high.
We have a choice: either we take a path towards protectionism or we just wait around until our standard of living is equal to China, India and Mexico. This is where we are headed regardless of whatever policy Washington might dream up.

On a personal note: I am so excited of the tone of this string. The points are all worth discussing. I wish the general tone in Washington could follow this example.

We are in a big hole - agreed. I also am very uncomfortable with owing China the amount of money we do. Though I am a Progressive Atheist, this out-and out communist country is messing with the world. The manipulation of currency, the forced labor... it is a huge problem and I will be much happier if we could pay them off and be able to be a whole lot more vocal about our issues.

I do believe Obama has brought up complaints about China. I do believe there have been at least four. Now, if you fact check me and point out my wrongness, I will not argue. I very well could be wrong & will absolutly admit it a head of time.

I don't thinkwe can argue our country's infrastructure is crumbling. I firmly believe this is a problem. Long-term, the re building of it may not be the solution. At this point; however, we are in a consumer driven economy and getting Americans some money while solving a major issue will at the very least, begin to gain some momentum. Long term, we can all argue. Who really knows what the future will bring? Maybe a worker will delope some high tech inovation and we can corner the market? At any rate, I firmly believe infrastructure and education are the very first needed steps to turn things around.

That's my point, Michael. Given that, the worst thing, in my opinion, we can do right now is dump a bunch of money into short term fixes, expensive infrastructure, more expensive energy solutions and aimless (in terms of where it will lead us) expansion of our educational system. We've never been in a position where we were as dependent on the actions and outcomes of other nations as we are now. We're not equipped to handle it, we're bridled by a political system that's not able to react quickly to international challenges of this nature, and we have a whole slew of foreign powers who'll quickly lose interest in us (and many, with a gleam in their eye) once we no longer are a market for what they produce.

@Bob McBride You are absolutely correct. Remember, those awful trade agreements that we have made in the past were initiated by our own business class. The cheap labor and subsequent huge profits that were made has led to the largest transfer of wealth in world history- from the Western world to the East. You see, short term greed by Corporations has led to the downfall of the US>

@Michael -

Hoffa agrees - some protectionism is in order. But we also have a lot of leverage as the world's largest marketplace for finished goods - we still largely control the demand, which is a far more powerful force than supply.

Free trade is great if everyone is playing by the same standards, but where disparity exists, it encourages what we consider to be exploitation.

It would be ideal if the American consumer would change their consumption habits and were all more like Hoffa!

Michael, that doesn't take into account the complicit nature of consumers nor does it take into account the role technology played (and continues to play). Without acknowledging the effects of consumers responding to low priced goods (not always out of necessity - who really needs all the crap we buy?) and technology that not only makes outsourcing possible but, in some cases, has eliminated whole categories of job-types by doing the work, directly, we'll end up focusing our energies in the wrong direction.

The third factor - the growth of other world economic powers - is completely out of our control. Without actions on their part to convert from self-contained, anti-capitalist nations to government controlled hyper-caplitalist ones, the opportunity for outsourcing wouldn't even be there.

Scapegoats are convenient and serve to relieve us of the responsibility we all share for where we are today. But they do nothing to help us focus on selecting the least disagreeable of options for moving forward.

I don't agree, Michael. It's not a matter short term greed at all. Globalization has flooded the market with cheap labor. If a company wants to compete in the marketplace, they need to have competitive labor rates. Moving jobs overseas is the only way to do that.

While globalization costs jobs in the short term, we will realize a long term benefit in that the third world will develop economically to the point of becoming viable trade partners and start buying products from the US. That should result in a net gain for the US.

The unskilled jobs are going to stay overseas, so we need to work to create more skilled jobs here. Instead of lamenting the low level manufacturing job losses, we need to be moving toward evolving our economy to have a more skilled manufacturing base, and increase the value of the work being done by those working manufacturing jobs.

@FreeThought Troy -

The problem with massive infrastructure improvements and education investments is that they won't lead to long term economy growing results and will cost more in expenditures than they'll return in revenues, thus contributing to even deeper deficits and debts.

50% of those graduating from higher education now can't a job in their chosen field. What good would adding even more over-qualified people to the labor pool do other than drive wages down even further than they already are?

And without a prospering industrial backbone, what good would massive infrastructure improvements do? You might realize some limited temporary gain, but once the money was spent and gone, that would dry up fast and the infrastructure would go largely unused while the people would still be stuck with the cost and expense of maintaining it.

TRADE POLICY is the right answer, just as Hoffa has been saying for the last 2 years on Patch and the last 2 decades of his life!

@Michael -

The greed wasn't with the corporations - it was with the American consumers who demanded low cost goods over their American made competitors. The corporations were just responding to consumer demand.

We (other than Hoffa and those like him) are our own worst enemy - and most people are too stupid to realize it.

@CowDung -

Our population is far too large and diverse to think that we could maintain a very specialized niche economy the way several small European nations do. We need a strong industrial back bone. And we can get those jobs back by exercising the power of our marketplace to demand an equalized playing field from our trading partners.

One solution would be to impose an additional sales tax on all good sold here but produced in foreign countries that don't play by the same standards (cost of labor, environmental protections, workplace safety, etc) that would balance the price of those goods to consumers. This would also allow the consumer to make the choice as to what product to buy, as opposed to traditional protectionist sanctions. The amount of the tax would vary based on the disparity of cost involved in producing the good. With bar code and UPC technology, this could be a very viable system to consider.

We have to be careful though, Hoffa. Protectionist actions when we are already on the bad end of the trade imbalance might not be good for our exports.

Not sure if having a skilled manufacturing base is necessarily a 'niche'. There are billions of people qualified to do low skill manufacturing work. Raise the skills required to do the work, and we cut down the number of available workers significantly. We can only do well if we have a skilled and educated workforce doing jobs that cannot be done by the average overseas worker.

@Cowdung Foreign business analysts are simply confounded by the American belief of perpetual demand. Americans tend to believe that profits are always on the upscale. What is missing in the equation is the relative well-being of the customer. Domestic demand will not sky rocket unless the customer is doing well.

China, for instance, is slowing down due to the state of the American and European consumers. That country has been warned for atleast 3 years that the income of the average American and European has flattened, if not fallen. Depending on exports for a country's success is actually a good thing. The only problem with it is that you are depending upon foreign factors that can easily spin out of control.

The US will not flourish until we have trade surpluses. Check out China, Brazil, Germany and Saudi Arabia. Their trade surplusses iare the root cause of their health.

@CowDung -

The balance is important and critical here.

But at the same time, we shouldn't be allowing the 'unfair' players to dictate to us the quality/standard of living that we have to put up with here in order to compete on a global scale; we're Americans after all - we take pride in telling the rest of the world what to do, and not succumbing to the standards imposed by the unfair players!

Free trade would be ideal if everyone were playing by the same rules. But until that happens, you need to equalize the playing field. One way would be by dissolving the inefficient and corrupt WTO and forming a new fair trade coalition. If we got together with Europe, South Africa, Canada, Australia, the UK, Ireland, Russia, Japan, some Eastern bloc nations, and select Central and South American nations, we would control nearly 80% of the world's demand for finished goods. While China, India, Malaysia, the Philippines, etc. would still largely control the supply. But what good would that supply be if there were no demand?

They need us more than we need them. It's time we used that power and influence to benefit us instead of giving it all away to our unfair playing competitors.

And as Hoffa has always said, it would be nice if our consumers would act a little less greedy and a little more conscientious about their consumption habits. Many Asian nations teach their children protectionism/nationalism in school.

That was my point, Michael. Globalization provides jobs for those in the developing countries. When those people have decent jobs, the countries get stronger economically, and as they develop, they move into a better position to buy out exported goods. These new markets will help push the balance of trade more toward our favor. Our short term losses in jobs will turn out to be long term gains in moving toward a trade surplus...

@CowDung Your thinking is theoretically correct. Multi-national corporations (many of them American-based) have openly stated that they could care less about the state of the American economy. Their actions have backed up their statements. They seek the lowest-cost labor wherever it may be found and seek whoever has money in their wallets wherever he may be found. Obama recently spoke of 'economic patriotism.' That is a thing of the past

As for our domestic companies: they don't want to pay their employees anything, they don't want to pay any federal or state taxes, and they don't want to be regulated whatsoever.

It is this same business community that is pulling the strings in Washington. Of course our trade policies are out of whack. Who do you think is actually writing them?

The only way things will turn around is if the private sector starts caring about their employees and communities again. Good luck with that.

I think you are missing something, Michael. There's more to it than 'big businesses caring about the American economy'. Keeping jobs here, paying higher labor costs, and losing sales to overseas businesses isn't going to keep our companies in business. If our companies don't stay in business, the jobs go away, and eventually the American economy along with it.

Once the labor market went global and opened up to billions of workers, the value of unskilled manufacturing labor fell. The wage levels paid in America are way above the value of the work.

The way to keep jobs in America is to have the type of manufacturing base that requires a higher skill level than is readily available overseas. By raising the value of the work being done, we can afford to pay the higher wages we need in the US.

@CowDung US companies are currently sitting on almost 2 trillion dollars in cash. The US private sector has never been this profitable in history. Medium household income has dropped 4000$ in the last 3 years. Now they want corporate tax relief and a reduction in government services. 46 million people are currently on food stamps.

The private sector is turning this country into one of our third world counterparts.

CowDung,

I understand what you're saying, but what type of manufacturing base is that, exactly? It seems that for years I've been hearing that this job or that job will never move overseas because they're just incapable of doing and, within an astoundingly short period of time, there they go. I'm seriously having a hard time figuring out how we're going to employ a pile of folks in any type of manufacturing job for any period of time as long as the wage discrepancy (which, again, we really have no control over) between our country and countries like China exists. Between increasing technological capabilities that have essentially incorporated an entire machine shop into one CNC machine, for instance, and foreign competitors who can match us widget for widget in a short period of time at a third of the cost, how do we ever come out ahead?

We seem to be straying a bit from the globalization and trade topic with this talk of hoards of cash and the seeking of tax breaks.

Are businesses truly as profitable as they were in the past, or have they just been hoarding cash? Having cash on hand doesn't mean that anyone is making obscene profits, it usually means that they aren't spending the money to expand or grow the business.

Bob:

The problem with the manufacturing jobs is that most were relatively low skill positions. It doesn't take much training or education for someone to do the work. We have billions of people qualified for those jobs, and most of them will work for very low wages. When the labor market opened up to include all those people, the jobs went to where the supply was greatest and the cost was low.

The more skilled a job is, the longer it will take for cheap labor to flood the market for those jobs. India can supply some engineers for $12/hour, but there don't seem to be enough to threaten US engineering jobs (yet). By the time that happens, I would expect (and hope) their standards of living will rise and wage differentials between US and foreign labor to shrink to the point that it may not be as easy a decision for a company to use foreign labor.

I guess I envision a new type of manufacturing that will require workers to do more complex tasks that require a higher level of skill, thinking, etc. that cannot be easily matched by the typical laborer overseas. At some point, the foreign labor will catch up in skills and education, but their standards of living will also have been rising.

@CowDung Companies are not spending money in the US to expand because of the lack of increased demand. Demand has fallen off because wages have fallen off. The private sector hasn't figured that one out yet.

Consumers in the US aren't the only source for demand. That's why the emerging markets in developing countries are so important. That is where the outsourcing of jobs will actually help the US...

Companies and investors are not spending due to Obama. The uncertainty never ends with this guy who wants everyone to have a fair shot but if you get too fair of a shot and successful well you owe more to the gov. Obamacare and his ever harder push to raise taxes create an environment where nothing moves fast.

Remove Obama with a pro free market guy and watch how fast the economy will pick up. Capital will flow again and investments in small business will flow.

@CowDung -- "Consumers in the US aren't the only source for demand." Sure, and those 99 cent per hour Chinese workers who live in dormitories will prove to be an eager market for those iPads and cell-phones they make. And each one of them will buy an American-made Jeep if only we lower our corporate tax rate.

I don't think so.

Don't forget Randy, that the US workforce was once made up of a bunch of uneducated immigrants working for pennies a day. It's only a matter of time before their standards of living rise as more people join the working class...

You think everyone outside of the USA makes $0.99/hr?

This reply string is getting rather long--let's continue the discussion by posting a new comment at the bottom of the page...

@CowDung -

How many years has Nike been manufacturing shoes is overseas sweatshops, and how much has the wage of those workers increased over those years? You'd figure that after 30 years, they must be close to the wages demanded by American workers, right?

Hoffa:

See my reply at the bottom of the page.

My head is spinning from reading the same crap from you seem to post over and over again--aside from the religious bigotry that you had included in your previous posts..

My head is spinning from all the nonsense;bigotry,idiocy.

*********************

So your solution is to lay down some of your own? Brilliant.

Nick, seriously, whatever it is you may excel at elsewhere, you don't do yourself any favors here. It's the same nonsense over and over and over. It's not selling, and it's not the audience's fault. It's your fault. Nobody's obligated here to read and attempt to absorb all that baloney and your opinion alone isn't enough to sell your POV.

Back to the ivory tower (aka, your cubby at UWM) for you.

There goes another $500 annually from the value of McBride's UWM diploma!

@Poulos -

You don't even realize how you contradict yourself!

You claim to want people to think for themselves, while also professing to having deferred to the analysis, opinions, and conclusions, of the so-called 'fact-checkers,' as opposed to thinking for yourself!

Hoffa is starting to believe that if you're as smart as you think you are, then you must realize this and are doing it purposefully.

Thus, the only logical conclusion is that all of your posts are really meant as nothing more than a comedy routine!

Either that or you really aren't as smart as you profess yourself to be here!

You just got Hoffa'd again big guy - how does it feel?

Nick Poulos -

Great points Nick... lost on the ideologically driven, racists GOP cretins here.

They don't care about the destruction of America with Willard and Lyin' Ryan, they just want a WHITE MAN in the WHITE HOUSE.

I guess they just don't understand that Obamacare covers this racist pre-condition.

@Lyin' John Wilson -

The only racists around here would be you, Schmitzy, and Dirk.

General Tommy Franks has been named to Romney's military advisory council. Why didn't the GOP just nominate George W. Bush? I suppose they're doing the next "best" thing.

No thank you.

Fred van der Wal -

Great points, however, they are lost on this cabal of Boffa [Human Events Links]lemmings... even the great Jerry Fartwell doesn't agree with them.

Fred van der Wal -

"Romney’s New ‘Military Advisory Council’ Packed With Military Contractors Mitt Romney’s campaign yesterday announced a “Military Advisory Council” of retired military officers who support his candidacy for president. “While many of those on the Council are clearly decorated veterans,” boldprogressive.org’s Zaid Jilani observes, “one curious aspect of the list is how many of these military figures left the government only to become highly paid consultants and board members to major weapons makers.” Romney plans on increasing military spending by more than $2 trillion should he become president (without any plan to pay for it) and perhaps Romney’s new supporters plan on cashing in."

It is the new Military-Industrial-Complex gone completely mad... sort of like Willard and Lyin Ryan...

America may be going bankrupt, then to planet Kolob, but, gosh, we are going to have mountains of Bibles and weapons to protect us... from what?

Oh My Lord, you mean Obama the Chosen One, the Savior of the world, has sworn you to secrecy? Oh wait, that can't be. We only have one Jesus Christ so that would mean Obama is the anti-Christ.

How about a Christian with a scar on their chin. It's not an open wound but would that do? I could pick it so it's open. Does that qualify? Huh? Huh?

Wilson: Does the word slander mean anything to you? Libel?
That is totally inappropriate and was flagged as such.
You may want to retain an attorney when take insults to this level.

@Craig -

Lyin' John Wilson's bloviating drivel is comparable to Larry Flint's parody ad in Hustler magazine of the Reverend Jerry Falwell having sex with his mother in an outhouse.

JRH: If he were talking about my family business, I would have already been to my attorney. It is one thing to be an asshole like he is, but deliberate acts to damage an income for several people is beyond the scope of 'fighting words'.
I was outraged, I have to give you credit for your tempered reaction. I know what it is like to put your whole life into your business, it is hard enough being on duty 24/7 and taking risk without that crap.

I don't think anyone here would seriously thing that Hoffa serves road-kill or sells magic underwear. He seems a decent sort despite our differing beliefs.

And Hoffa, it was 'on the way to' the outhouse. Always know your Hustler references!

@Randy1949 -

Sorry, Hoffa only knows of the Hustler reference from third party sources, as opposed to primary knowledge ;-)

John Wilson, you have given me my first laugh today, thank you.

Unlike some, I know this is humor.

; )

JRH -

The now 88-year old, dementia sufferer, Lee I A IN YOUR COCA turned a failing car company around, with zillions of taxpayer money… does this remind you sort of like… what’s the name of that company again… GM?

Willard was against assisting GM…

“Realizing that the company would go out of business if it did not receive a significant amount of money for a turnaround, Iacocca approached the United States Congress in 1979 and asked for a loan guarantee. While some have said that Congress lent Chrysler the money, the government only guaranteed the loans. Most observers thought this was an unprecedented move, but Iacocca pointed to the government's bailouts of the airline and railroad industries. He argued that there were more jobs at stake in Chrysler's possible demise. Iacocca received the loan guarantee from the government, whose decision caused controversy.”

At this point, even being a next door neighbor to Willard, Lee I A IN YOUR COCA would endorse a fig leaf...

@Lyin' John Wilson -

There you AGAIN with your LIES!!!

Carter's bailout of Chrysler under Iacocca's leadership was a straight up interest bearing loan with a defined repayment scheduled. And Chrysler paid back all of their loans, with interest, ahead of schedule - the taxpayers actually made money off of that deal.

Contrast to Obama's smoke filled room, behind close doors, crony dealings that involved the Canadian government, a private Italian conglomerate, the UAW, and a cars czar that in the end actually cost taxpayers around $50B in real money that we'll never recover.

If Obama can't even be as successful as Carter was, then clearly there's a big problem and Obama needs to go!

You must love getting your ass handed to you over and over again by the great Hoffa!

JRH –

Lyin’ Boffa, it was TAXPAYER MONEY!

"Chrysler received a US Government 1.5 BILLION Loan Guarantee package in December of 1979. “Congress required Chrysler to obtain private financing for $1.5 billion -- the government was co-signing the note… and to obtain another $2 billion in "commitments or concessions [that] can be arranged by Chrysler for the financing of its operations." One of those options, of course, was reduced employee’s wages; in prior discussions, the union had failed to budge, but the contingent guarantee moved the union.”

This was NOT a straight up interest bearing loan with a defined repayment schedule.

Chrysler did repay the loan in 1983, and we did make $350 Million, however, it was NOT ahead of schedule.

Regarding the GM Loan guarantees, they still owe on the loan, but are currently repaying it on schedule. I would caution about comparing Chrysler in 1979 and the total economic environment then, with the GM in 2009 and the total economic environment now.

Boffa may attempt to do so, but it is clearly a very false equivalency. [That's the apples & oranges argument.]

@Lyin' John Wilson -

You're just a non-stop lying machine today - you must be getting desperate!

1) Of course there was taxpayer money involved - Hoffa never claimed otherwise. But under Carter, it was a straight up interest bearing loan with a defined repayment schedule - no other hanky-panky was involved.

2) Carter and Iacocca made sure that Chrysler paid back every penny, and the taxpayers actually made money off the loan, as you've conceded, to the tune of $350M.

3) The loans were repaid ahead of schedule by seven (7) years - http://www.nbcuniversalarchives.com/nbcuni/clip/5112423729_s01.do

4) Under Obama's crony hanky-panky smoked filled back room deal involving the Canadian government, a private Italian conglomerate, the UAW, and a cars czar, the taxpayers stand to lose about $50B ($25B to GM and Chrysler and $24.5B to GMAC) on the deal that we will never recover, according to the US Treasury and CBO.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/13/us-auto-bailout-treasury_n_1773811.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/08/15/auto-bailout-price-tag-rises-to-25-billion-how-high-will-it-go/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/auto-bailout-was-not-unmitigated-success/2012/09/06/4edae4bc-f854-11e1-8398-0327ab83ab91_story.html

And yet, Obama, in disagreement with his own Treasury Dept and the CBO, tells the American people that every penny of taxpayer funds spent on his auto-bailout has been paid back in full:

http://patdollard.com/2012/10/obama-claims-we-got-back-every-dime-of-bailout-money-on-same-day-cbo-reports-24b-loss/

OBAMA LIES!!!

And his LIES cost us $50B.

Many believe, with good supporting evidence, that the bailouts were little more than a crony pander to his union campaign supporters in the UAW.

OBAMA = 1 MILLION TIMES WORSE THAN CARTER!!!

Stand for truth NOW!

ROMNEY/RYAN/THOMPSON 2012!!!

@Hoffa
"Many believe, with good supporting evidence, that the bailouts were little more than a crony pander to his union campaign supporters in the UAW."

I believe that you are an intelligent person. You honestly believe this? C'mon you are better than that.

@John Feia -

Why did Obama involve the UAW, the Italians, the Canadians, and a cars czar in his bailout deal?

Carter's very successful bailout only involved the US Government and the the car company in trouble - that's it!

Lyin' John Wilson purports that comparing the two bailouts is like comparing apples to oranges, however, this is clearly erroneous. In both cases, the companies had run out of money and were unable to meet their financial obligations. What was needed was money. And in both cases, money was provided. There is no fundamental difference here.

And yet, for some reason, Obama had to involve all those extra players - if you're not questioning why, then you're either incapable of thinking this one through, or unwilling to do so, because it would lead you to an unfavorable conclusion about Obama.

And what about Obama clearly LYING to the American people about all the taxpayers loans being repaid in full - why doesn't this outrage you?!?!

The CBO, OMB, and US Treasury all say otherwise - that we, as taxpayers, stand to lose about $50B overall on Obama's auto bailout!

So, either Obama is INCOMPETENT or he was LYING - either way, he needs to go!

Why are you so willing to support a LIAR is quite simply beyond Hoffa's ability to comprehend.

Carter's auto bailout - made the taxpayers $350M
Obama's auto bailout - cost the taxpayers $50B

Seeing as how Carter isn't running, the choice is obvious in this election!

ROMNEY/RYAN/THOMPSON!!!

CD: I think the wage issue took a half century or more to move from the working poor to the middle class. Considering China is just getting up to speed, and many other Nations are just emerging, that 50 year clock has not been counting down long.
(despite the 30 years that Nike has been in Thailand or wherever they are)
The US can't wait for that long, not with our GDP to Debt ratio.
China is going to play hardball with the workers, they can't organize as easily.

I never said that it would be a quick process, but I fear that it is one that will have to run its course...

We do have some hope as we are seeing gains in parts of India and some other areas of the world, but we are still have a long way to go...

Craig, I don't know that we have a lot of choice. The days of us having the upper hand are slowly coming to an end, if not already in the past. The growth areas for consumer and industrial demand, and wealth concentration, are in those regions, not here.

The only thing I can look to positively is that changes do seem to occur very quickly in those regions, including social change. There is a rapidly developing and expanding upper middle class in some of these countries that controls a significant amount of wealth that could pose a challenge to some of the strong government elements and unless the governments want cut off their noses to spite their faces (which would probably work to our advantage over the short term at the very least), they're going to have to go along with some of the demands arising from this class.

We really have to decide if we're going to try and mortgage the future and spend our way out of this thing with the hopes that we can do so and time "paying the piper" perfectly with this global equalization or if we should play it cautiously, not over-spend and introduce some of the practices that have allowed our companies to survive the onslaught into our government and our economic system on a larger scale.

Bob: You have to remember China doesn't like thier people to push for change. Those who protest can be eliminated and replaced without the factoies missing a beat.

Nuitari:
Really? Statements like yours shed a lot of light on your intelligence and character.

John Feia:

Statements like yours shows the world you are indeed ignorant of reading something other than toilet paper. Here's some reading you might want to do before bothering me again.

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2009-03-29/news/0903280381_1_muslim-americans-american-islamic-relations-white-house

No need to comment. Your rhetoric speaks for itself. I will stop bothering you because acknowledging your comments give them more credit than they deserve...which is none.

John Feia you seem to be proficient at looking stupid because you refuse to acknowledge I just dismissed your attack with facts and all you can do is call my comment worthless.

Now, my comments are usually immature I'll admit, but after glancing at some of yours, you make kindergarten look like a major accomplishment in your life.

If you say so...

@CowDung -

And the worst part about Nike is that their products aren't even cheap!

Hoffa recently bought a new pair of Made with pride in the USA with domestically sourced materials New Balance's for $79. You're lucky if you can find a pair of sweatshop labor made Nike's for that price!

New Balance is my brand of choice...

JRH: Thanks for the tip on US made tennies!
I've been wearing some hideous boat shoes because of the inability to find US made tennis shoes.

Check before you buy. All New Balance are not made in the USA. My NB Walking Shoes are made in the USA. They are so comfortable I did some shopping around online and ordered 2 more pair for $112. This price included free shipping, no tax, and a $5 discount promo code. Farm & Fleet carries New Balance and there is an NB store in the shopping mall on the corner of 76th & Layton.

@CowDong Last year the Chinese Government ordered all workers to get a 20% raise in order to increase consumer demand and to provide more social stability. It also has promised substantial forced raises over the next five years.

The western investors have reacted by pulling some operations out of China along with 240 billion dpllars of investments over this year alone. China wants a stable society, the investors want a massive sweat shop. You decide which one is right.

Hoffa can proudly recommend this model - great for daily use walking, as well as running!

http://www.newbalance.com/New-Balance-587/M587,default,pd.html

Check Amazon for the best price.

And mau is dead on correct - not all NB's are made in the USA. Some are merely assembled in the USA with foreign sourced materials. The nice thing about NB though is that they are good about fully disclosing everything on their website! And even if you decide to go with a mere assembled in the USA (as opposed to the full on made in the USA) or even a foreign pair of NB's, it's better than supporting Nike, Reebok, etc.

Michael:

That seems to be an illustration of why having the government raise the minimum wage (or arbitrarily setting wages) doesn't actually help anyone.

@CowDung The opposite is actually true. China's problem was the lack of money sufficiently flowing throughout the country. This type of setting does cause social unrest. In fact, China does have periodic riots to this day. Their problem is that there is too much money at the top. It is kind of what we are experiencing right now in this country. Consider it a forewarning of things to come.

Michael:

Your answer fails to address my point. When wages are artificially set higher than the actual value of the work, companies will find ways to avoid paying the higher wage. It does no good to raise wages if people are going to lose their jobs...

Wealth is not finite, but rather infinite - ever since we and a majority of the world left the gold standard, wealth is now only limited by the perceived value that one is able to create for themselves.

@CowDung The Chinese Government acknowledged at the time that the country would lose some business due to higher payrolls. The Western investors were accustomed to their exorbitant profits.

National governments are concerned about their economies; private businesses are not. Economists measure the state of the economy not by wealth accumulation, but by what is called money flow. Money flow is simply a look at how well the cash is circulating throughout your community. The more money flowing, the more people benefit from it. When money is hoarded, then less and less people benefit from it.

On CNBC today the corporate forecasts for the upcoming year was terrible. There is a worldwide decline in demand. Lack of money flow is catching up to the private sector. They failed to see that the state of the economies and their own businesses are in fact intertwined. Robert Reich, Clinton's former labor secretary, saw this coming last winter. The private sector's greed is coming home to roost.

What are the actual net profit margins for these 'exorbitant profits' you are referring to Michael?

@CowDung If their operations weren't profitable enough, they certainly wouldn't have their plants located so far from their customer base. Besides, I think you are missing the point. Business people are great at looking at quarterly profit reports, but they are simply too dense to notice the big picture. It is this type of buffoon that is actually running the show. It is too bad that so many people have to suffer for it!

Having overseas operations because they 'weren't profitable enough' is hardly the definition of 'exorbitant profits'. Maybe they were losing money and not making any profit before they moved operations overseas. If their competitor is going to market at half the price, then a company must lower their prices to compete and remain in business. It's pretty hard to lower prices without cutting costs...

@CowDung The axiom is really quite simple: a business only does well as long as its customer base is doing well. And who are the customers? The employees, of course. Forever reducing labor costs is actually biting the hand that feeds you. It is too complicated for the business class to understand. The whole world has to suffer because of it.

The idea that a company's customer base is largely made up of their employees is out of date in today's global marketplace. Globalization has increased the buying power of many in the developing countries and has created many new potential customers. With globalization, the whole world will gain.

@CowDung I think Randy is the one that said that many, many employees of these foreign lands cannot afford the products in the marketplace. He is absolutely right. That is a chief reason why we are in a worldwide economic slow down. The American consumer is taking home less and less- and so are the Europeans for that matter. This idea of a neverending marketplace is a fallacy, a sales job perpetrated by those who are already sitting on mountains of cash. They were so good at this flim flam that they even started believing it. The wages just simply aren't there.

Politicians keep on talking about job creators and the problems that the suppliers are having. Wrong! The problem is with demand, and it will be like that for a long time to come.

While it is true that many cannot afford the goods they make, it is also true that many can. Many companies have expanded their markets into places like India, where many are enjoying buying power that their parents and grandparents could only dream of.

Here in the US, Christmas will be coming soon--sales last year were up from the previous year, soon we will see if that trend continues, or if we have indeed run out of demand for product. I'm thinking that there will still be demand this year...

John, may be disrespectful, these are well known tactics of the left. I use them occasionally to illustrate what your side does a lot. Most of what I see from your side is talking about small things, such as binders and big bird. This is another tactic to keep us from talking about the big things. Debt, deficit, Obamacare, SS, Medicare, wars, Benghazi, unemployment. In the end these are the things that will take down the United States. The American people gave Obama a chance, his vision does not work for this country. The path we are on will make us look more like Europe than what we all grew up knowing as the American Dream. If you look at just about every measureable Obama has failed. We now know what Keynesian and Socialistic policies bring us. The common response is that it's Bush's fault doesn't cut it, especially after 4 years. By all accounts the next Congress will be more Republican, we need to have a Republican President and see what happens. This won't win over the liberal wing of your party but the independents are coming over to R&R 2012

Well said.

Typical liberals. Nobody wins, and everybody gets a trophy just for showing up at the debate.

Because republicans wouldn't let a jobs bill go through, all Bush and rethug fault...

Obamanesia! Priceless, :-P

Actually it originated with "romnesia" some just would rather steal than have an original thought. Too much work. But it entertains the mindless minions.

@JMB

The 30 billion you are talking about was a payment to a healthcare trust (Voluntary Employee Benefits Trust, or VEBA). This is an investment trust that will manage employees benefits and will allow GM to not have a financial interest in providing the benefits in the future. This was no crony capitalism handout to the UAW as Hoffa and you try to intimate.
Of the 60 billion originally provided to GM & Chrysler, 33 billion has already been paid back. Even if no more gets paid back ( which, even with the devalued stock of GM is still on track to be paid back) the cost of letting them fail has been estimated at $50 billion to $60 billion in the first year alone, and another $34 billion to $54 billion in the second year because of reduced personal taxes collected and increased safety net payments such as unemployment benefits and food stamps. This is according to the Center for Automotive Research.

You say that after the election you "believe" the govt will sell their shares and the American people will take about a 50B dollar hit? Based on what intuition?

These are things that have have followed but here is a link that I used to back up what I see as the facts.
http://money.cnn.com/2012/09/06/autos/auto-bailout/index.html
More over my comment was more directed to Hoffa's comment : "Many believe, with good supporting evidence, that the bailouts were little more than a crony pander to his union campaign supporters in the UAW." which I feel is a ridiculous assertion.

@John Feia -

Does VEBA not benefit UAW members?

Last Hoffa checked, it did.

Yes it does but the greater benefit is realized by GM. Any shortfalls in benefit coverage must be covered by the UAW.

JRH –

Either Boffa is INCOMPETENT or he is a LIAR… manifestly, he may be BOTH…

The ONLY (2) items fundamentally similar here – Chrysler in 1979 & [GM & Chrysler] in 2009 – is the fact that they both needed money in order to survive, and both could not find anyone to loan them the money. In Chrysler’s case the Carter government created a controversial PRECEDENT and COSIGNED the loan, otherwise Chrysler would have died.

As I have stated earlier, I am not going to compare apples & oranges here; the CONTEXT, 30-years apart in time, magnitude of job losses and the hit to the economy, consequences of Chrysler going bankrupt in 1979, [GM & Chrysler] going bankrupt in 2009 – in the midst of BUSH’S DEPRESSION – and the corresponding results of each of these events is not even close to apples & oranges.

The president had to get many different players and entities involved in order to get the deal done, and there were far many more tentacles involved in this than Boffa’s oversimplification. For Boffa, everything is a conspiracy, crony Capitalism or President Obama being incompetent... because Obama does not agree with Boffa!

This loan guarantee for GM and repayment is an ongoing enterprise and is not yet over; when it finally concludes, then you may legitimately judge it in Toto… I do not think that anyone would want to stop a Packer game in the 1st quarter and say, “See, the Pack lost, because the score was Packers 7 & Bears 10!”

[Except Boffa]

@Sharpie -

Romney is not involved in Bain Capital anymore, and hasn't been for quite some time. His current investment in Bain is about $7M, or .01% of Bain's assets under management - hardly a controlling interest!

The video that you link to is grossly unfair and does not tell the whole representative story of the situation with Sensata in Freeport.

If anything, people should be holding Obama accountable for losing those jobs to China, as he's the current President, not Romney. Obama is in a far better position to be able to offer things that could potentially save those jobs.

Let's get real please!

You know why the jobs are going to China? You know who made it all possible?
Jesus, you people bitch about the jobs going to China and support B. Hussein Obama. Sharpie isn't so sharp- Thank Clinton for the work going to China.
"I'll take most favored nation status for $16 Trillion, Alex"

Actually Johnny, the burden is on you. Hoffa pointed out Romney's very, very, very small interest in the company. Do you have something that indicates he does more than vote at shareholder meetings?

I thought not.

@Lyin' John Wilson -

According to Romney's released tax returns, he has about $7M currently invested with Bain, which would represent approximately .01% of the current $66B in assets that Bain manages.

http://www.mittromney.com/disclosure

http://www.baincapital.com/

Romney legally and officially retired from Bain Capital in early 2002.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/19/us/politics/retirement-deal-keeps-bain-money-flowing-to-romney.html?_r=2&pagewanted=all&;

If you count the 'retirement package' that Romney received from Bain as a part of his Bain 'investments,' even though Romney is only entitled to the profit from such investments and not the principal, then you're looking at about $23M in total current investment, which would represent approximately .03% of the assets currently under management by Bain.

In either case, Romney's current investment in Bain is miniscule at best. Hardly a controlling interest and hardly enough to give Romney any decision making power within the firm.